Xref: utzoo comp.lang.lisp:895 comp.sys.mac.programmer:877
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!dewey.soe.berkeley.edu!mkent
From: mkent@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Marty Kent)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Anyone using pcl (clos) under Allegro Common Lisp?
Message-ID: <24158@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 19 May 88 12:44:08 GMT
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mkent@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu (Marty Kent)
Organization: School of Education, UC-Berkeley
Lines: 27

Is anyone out there doing anything with pcl (CLOS) under Allegro common lisp?
I've recently gotten the sources from parcvax, and I'm interested in the
possibility of rewriting a bunch of code I've done in Object Lisp, in pcl.
(Got that?)

One reason I'd like to do this is that I'd expect to get a substantial speed
increase. The Allegro documentation says that Object Lisp is not to be
expected to run at high speed, but what about the implementation of pcl? Since
it's still in some kind of early state of development, what kind of
performance can one expect from the current version? I'd be very interested
to hear from anyone who's actually done any measured comparisons between the
two systems. 

Another factor possibly in pcl's favor is that it's supposedly on the way to
becoming a standard, while Object Lisp's future seems to be less than rosy...
Do you feel pcl is in fact emerging as a standard like common lisp (I mean
widely accepted like common lisp, not necessarily funky like common lisp :-)
or are there other lisp object extension systems clearly "in the running?"

I'd be interested in hearing from anyone with thoughtful stuff to say about
these things.

Marty Kent  	Sixth Sense Research and Development
		415/642 0288	415/548 9129
		MKent@dewey.soe.berkeley.edu
		{uwvax, decvax, inhp4}!ucbvax!mkent%dewey.soe.berkeley.edu
Kent's heuristic: Look for it first where you'd most like to find it.