Fri, 20 Mar 1998 14:51:09 +0100
At 11:30 Uhr +0100 20.03.1998, Rodrigo Ventura wrote:
>>>>>> "Mike" == Mike McDonald <email@example.com> writes:
> Mike> Well, why don't you (the perverbiable you), get a copy of CMUCL, put
> Mike> it on Linux, and start writing something. There's tons of things to
> Mike> write that don't require OS kernel expertise. Things like file system
> Mike> browsers, enhancing Hemlock, networking utilities (gzip, ftp, tar so
> Mike> you can get the latest CMUCL from the net (when they're back up)), ...
> I guess CMUCL is a bad choice: too heavy, too big, too complex
>and too slow.
How about providing an overview/comparison of existing systems? Guessing
might not be enough.
Currently CMU CL is the only choice for a CL-based system (IMHO).
It would be even better if it would run under Windows NT.
Weak points of CMU CL:
- not enough users (this can be changed)
- hard to port
- Threads and a better GC are still in development and only for
- CLOS is slow.
Rainer Joswig, Lavielle EDV Systemberatung GmbH & Co, Lotharstrasse 2b, D22041
Hamburg, Tel: +49 40 658088, Fax: +49 40 65808-202,
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org , WWW: http://www.lavielle.com/~joswig/