Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!cam-cl!jac From: jac@cl.cam.ac.uk (John Carroll) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: CLOS availability (was Re: Common Lisp on the DEC 3100) Message-ID: <855@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> Date: 3 Aug 89 10:27:28 GMT References: <162@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.ErU> <15627@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <43681@bbn.COM> Sender: news@cl.cam.ac.uk Reply-To: jac@cl.cam.ac.uk (John Carroll) Organization: U of Cambridge Comp Lab, UK Lines: 17 In article <43681@bbn.COM> mthome@vax.bbn.com (Mike Thome) writes: >CLOS implementations can be VERY efficient (as first demonstrated by TI's >implementation)... Yes, they can be efficient -- however the first complete (Chapters 1 and 2) commercially available implementation was produced by Procyon Research, Cambridge UK, for the Apple Macintosh. It was released in May. I have been using it since then and it is very quick. In article andrew@jung.harlqn.uucp (Andrew Watson) writes: >Gathering objective (no pun intended!) data on CLOS performance is difficult, >since there aren't any widely used benchmarks, ... Procyon have some CLOS benchmarks (get hold of their CLOS publicity handout -- their phone no. is +44 223 65011) e.g. TAK as a single-method generic function, CALL-NEXT-METHOD with :BEFORE, :AFTER and :AROUND methods etc. Does anyone else have a good set of benchmarks? John Carroll (jac@cl.cam.ac.uk)