Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!tj
From: tj@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Todd R. Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: System Level support for AI stuff
Message-ID: <19195@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 2 Aug 88 19:17:14 GMT
References: <465@afit-ab.arpa>
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Computer and Information Science
Lines: 27

In article <465@afit-ab.arpa> cbaron@icc.UUCP (Christopher T. Baron) writes:
>In article <37202@linus.UUCP> news@linus.UUCP (Robert Eachus) writes:
>>>The mind reels under the number of ways system and user performance
>>>could be improved.
>
>Making the Amiga into a lisp-machine is not my intention here.  What the 
>mind actually reels under is the memory and processor space required to 
>impliment Common Lisp on a micro.  I have used a Common Lisp SUBSET on a
>PC with a 16 MHz 386 and 9 Megs of memory and it was pathetic!  Someone 
>else will have to do that to the Amiga.  Scheme is much better and could
>be implemented well on the Amiga.

	I have been using Allegro Coral Common Lisp (not a subset) on a
Mac II (5 meg memory and 40meg hard dirve) to run SOAR (280 K,
contains OPS5).  It runs at about the same speed as an IBM PC-RT
running CMU common lisp and SOAR.  All in all, it is quite acceptable.
I would think that adding a 68020 and extra memory to an Amiga would
result in a nice environment for running common lisp.

	I've been trying to stay out of the Mac II vs. Amiga wars, but
I have to say something now.  I like 4 things about the Mac II: nice
hi-res color (flicker-free!) display, 68020, good commercial common
lisp, and a nice looking case.  After using one for an extended period
of time though, I must say that I would rather have a full blown 2000.
My 1000 is a much more interesting (and in many ways more advanced)
machine than the Mac II.

	---Todd