Re: Wishlisp

[Oliver Andrich <andrich@informatik.uni-koblenz.de>]

> Of course, if you need the power, you're better off using Common Lisp
> than re-implementing everything in scheme.  On the other hand, if you
> don't, it's nice to have the smaller footprint.  However, the internet
> Lisp archives are quite a bit more extensive than the scheme archives.
> On the other hand, for basic added functionality, there's SLIB.

I think that the SLIB makes Scheme really useful, cause the SLIB
provides a lot of nice features.

> Perhaps you'd like winterp?  It's a lisp interface to Motif.  On the
> plus side, it's lisp.  On the minus side it's Motif :).  The other
> minus is that it's not common lisp, it's only xlisp :(.

Well, I don't use Motif, cause I am using Linux on a machine with a
14" monitor. And because of the monitor I am using X-Windows not so
often. I only use it for tasks, where I need it. Something like doing
LaTeX. 

> It would be great if someone would develop a Tk interface to clisp.
> Maybe someone can yank the Tk interface out of STk & adapt it to
> clisp.  Or, perhaps if we wait for guile (the FSF's entry in the GUI
> scripting wars), we can either use it, or rip out the Tk interface for
> clisp.  The latter might be cleaner than using STk's interface,
> because the FSF is presumably cleaning up the interface to make it
> less Tcl like.

I think that this would be quite nice.

>  > And STk is slow in comparison to CLISP, and even slower in comparison
>  > to compiled CLISP-programs.
>  > 
> 
> I didn't find that...  But I didn't do extensive testing.  I tried
> doing 1000 factorial in each and found STk to beat out clisp slightly
> (even when factorial was compiled).

Well, I used the gabriel-benchmarks, and then I found clisp to be
faster as STk.

Bye, Oliver