[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: mcl and acl for ibm pc
- To: "Youngcook Jun" <uunet!symcom.math.uiuc.edu!yjun@uunet.UU.NET>
- Subject: Re: mcl and acl for ibm pc
- From: "Don Mitchell" <dhm%proact@uunet.UU.NET>
- Date: 13 Sep 1993 13:32:37 -0600
- Cc: "Info-mcl" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE>mcl and acl for ibm pc
ACL for ibm pc and ibm risc are two completely different products.
I'll only speak to general differences between acl pc and mcl. If you
have specific questions, I'll answer them.
They both support most of CLtL2 or dpANS. There are a few annoying
ommissions in both such as map-into. ACLPC is missing the
dynamic-extent declaration while mcl uses it to the utmost advantage.
More important to me, ACLPC is missing conditions.
MCL's compiler does wonders. Someone had an example of a function
last week in which mcl generates faster code than C! ACLPC's compiler
is horrid. It does not even catch missing arguments let alone do
anything in the way of optimization. It does do some type optimization
if you use type declarations. Note, to do much with any compiler, you
must use declarations.
MCL's editor is very powerful. It's a version of emacs. It does not offer
m-x commands, however. ACLPC offers four editor modes: Windows, Mac,
Emacs, and Brief. The emacs is somewhat powerful, but not as much as I
would like. It is extendable, however. It's major downfall is that it only
allows files that are shorter than 32K. If you hit the magic limit, it just
ignores input! (The cause is the use of a Windows edit widget as the basis
of the editor.)
Both seem to offer good support for native window look-and-feel
generation. MCL's use of views makes the organization much easier to
deal with. ACLPC uses rectangles which unlike views cannot be subclassed
or the basis for specialized methods.
MCL supports logical pathnames and there are a number of defsystems
that work with it. ACLPC does not support either although I've converted
Kantrowitz's logical pathnames to ACLPC and am in the process of
converting his defsystem as well.
MCL is fast. ACLPC even on a 486 66MHz is not fast as a development
environment. The code seems acceptably fast if you're doing GUI
routines primarily because Windows limits the speed for all applications.
I don't know about compute intensive code yet; however, the poor quality
of the compiler doesn't bode well.
MCL's debugger is very good. It allows full investigation of stack frames,
restart from arbitrary frame, integration with the inspector, etc.
ACLPC's is practically non-existant. It lists the frame buffers but has
no inspect or restart capability. You can disassemble code in MCL and look
for the current debugger position in the disassembled code to aid debugging.
You cannot disassemble code in ACLPC.
Official product support for MCL from Lucid stinks; however, the MCL
developers are great. They provide vigorous, thorough, and patient email
based support via info-mcl and bugs-mcl. info-mcl is wonderful as a
general community conversation and mutual support society. ACLPC's
official support is wonderful. They've been very responsive. They seem
genuinely interested in making the most of their product. They do run a
bbs; however, I've seen zero traffic on it; so, there's nothing comparable
to info-mcl for ACLPC.
Well, that's all I can think of without actually looking at anything :-) If
you have any specific questions, don't hesitate to ask. I want to learn too.
Date: 9/13/93 4:03 AM
To: Don Mitchell
From: Youngcook Jun
Date: 12 Sep 1993 20:14:14 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Can anybody tell me what are differences between mcl 2.0 and
acl for ibm pc or IBM RISC/6000?
Donald H. Mitchell Domain: email@example.com
Proactive Solutions Inc. UUCP: uunet!proact!dhm
5314 S. Yale Ave., Suite 402 Voice: 918.492.5192
Tulsa, OK 74135 FAX: 918.492.5193