[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: commonloops.pa@Xerox.COM
- Subject: PCL-CLOS compatibility
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Hans van Keulen)
- Date: Wed, 2 May 90 15:35:50 +0200
- Fax: +31 75 311502
- Organisation: Courseware Europe b.v. Ebbehout 1 1507 EA Zaandam, The Netherlands
- Phone: +31 75 172201
- Redistributed: commonloops.pa
We are considering to use PCL for building a prototype for one
of the DELTA projects of the European Community. We will be using
Xerox-1186 machines with Xerox-Medley and a Sun 3/60 with
Sun Common Lisp.
However, we are afraid of two things:
1) PCL may deviate from the CLOS standard (X3J13) unnoticedly:
> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 90 20:41 PST
> From: Gregor.pa@Xerox.COM
> Subject: Re: Benchmarking CLOS
> 2) PCL is not CLOS. PCL is a portable implementation with some
> interesting architectural ideas, I believe it can be made to
> perform relatively well, but most of the current ports do not
> perform adequately.
> 3) Not all ports of PCL are created equal. The P in PCL means
> that PCL can be ported relatively easily, not that it is written
> in pure Common Lisp.
2) PCL may contain unexpected bugs.
Two things which may result in quite time-consumable activities (and
We would like to hear about experiences of others in using PCL and
opinions on whether it is a good idea to use it (there is of course
a trade-off in using plain Common Lisp and a non-optimum PCL).
We would also like to know how or where, if available, we can get
an overview of the differences between PCL and CLOS.
Hans van Keulen