Xref: utzoo comp.lang.lisp:2255 comp.lang.lisp.x:14
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!usc!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jato!topaz!brian
From: brian@topaz.jpl.nasa.gov (Brian of ASTD-CP)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.lisp.x
Subject: Re: exploratory system for unix system calls/facilities
Keywords: interactive exploration
Message-ID: <1923@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>
Date: 16 Oct 89 23:56:14 GMT
References: <1753@xyzzy.UUCP> <970@tub.UUCP>
Sender: news@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov
Reply-To: brian@topaz.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Brian of ASTD-CP)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 24


  There are currently at least two extensible / customizable 
  interactive scheme implementations out there.  The new one
  is Extension Language Kit (Elk -- see references).  The older
  one is the venerable xscheme, now in version 0.17 (see the
  comp.lang.scheme newsgroup).  

  Has anyone compared them for speed, memory performance, and
  robustness?  

  I have run truly huge jobs with xscheme, and it has never failed
  on me (except for the well-known, and STILL unfixed save/restore
  problem -- see my recent posting in comp.lang.scheme).  I have
  also found xscheme's speed to be quite good for a byte-code
  compiler.

  The big advantage of Elk is that it's already hooked up to 
  XWindows.  I need an interactive XWindows tool, and I'm trying
  to decide whether to glue xscheme to XWindows or to switch to
  Elk.  To make that decision, I need some info on Elk's perfor-
  mance (space and time) and robustness compared to xscheme.

. . . Brian Beckman  . . . . . . . . . brian@topaz.jpl.nasa.gov. . .
. . . JPL Computer Graphics Lab. . . . (818) 397-9207. . . . . . . .