Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!trwind!venice!verket
From: verket@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Paul Verket)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Allegro Common Lisp vs. Kyoto Common Lisp (was re: lisp upgrade)
Message-ID: <1128@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM>
Date: 24 Jun 91 03:04:10 GMT
References: <1991Jun20.141011.21744@engage.pko.dec.com>
Reply-To: verket@venice.sedd.trw.com (Paul Verket)
Organization: TRW Systems Engineering & Development Division, Redondo Beach, CA
Lines: 19

In article <1991Jun20.141011.21744@engage.pko.dec.com> tenny@ootool.dec.com (Dave Tenny) writes:
...
>If you intend to use Lisp for solving real problems, then you require
>a robust, efficient and well supported language for the job.  There is no
>substitute for a finely honed architecture-specific lisp implementation,
>unless you have mips, time, and memory to spare.
>
>KCL is not particularly efficient as Common Lisp implementations go.
...
I moved some code from AKCL on a Sun 3 to Allegro on an 030 NeXT. An
informal timing test showed and 8 fold speed increase. Your mileage
WILL vary.

When I had a problem with Allegro's C interface, Franz Inc. debugged it in
a couple of days. In addition, their upgrade policy has been _very_
affordable for me as an individual.

Paul Verket 
verket@venice.sedd.trw.com (NeXTmail)