newbery@Toronto.ira.uka.de (Francie Newbery) (07/06/89)
Our University, currently a user of Sun Common Lisp 2.0.3, is considering whether to get a newer version of Sun Common Lisp or to switch to IBUKI Common Lisp. IBUKI seems attractive because they offer a site lisence and it will run on many machines, but I am unsure how its performance compares. Does anyone have any experience to report on IBUKI Common Lisp especially in comparison with Sun Common Lisp? I'm particularly interested in performance aspects and whether the same set of programs will actually run on both. Thanks in advance, Francie Newbery (newbery@ira.uka.de)
andrewt@watsnew.waterloo.edu (Andrew Thomas) (07/08/89)
In article <925@iraun1.ira.uka.de> newbery@Toronto.ira.uka.de (Francie Newbery) writes:
Does anyone have any experience to report on IBUKI Common Lisp especially
in comparison with Sun Common Lisp? I'm particularly interested in
performance aspects and whether the same set of programs will actually
run on both.
I have been using IBUKI on a uVAX II under Ultrix, and a Sun 3/60 Sun
O/S 3, for about 8 months. I am not in a position to judge how it
compares to Sun Common Lisp as I have never seen it. I can say that
in 8 months I have never run into any Common Lisp construct (from Guy
L. Steele Jr. - Common Lisp) which did not work as advertised. I have
never had a core dump except from incorrectly invoked compiled code
(my fault). Nor have I ever had a construct fail to compile. As far
as I know, IBCL is a modification of KCL, so you can probably get
fairly accurate timing comparisons by looking at KCL. I have
successfully used IBCL with PCL and CLX, though not extensively.
(Basically, they compiled and loaded and ran). One nice feature about
IBCL is that it comes with a GNU Emacs major mode which is ultra-handy.
While this is not as good as a LISPM enviroment, it is still pretty
nice. My only complaint about IBCL is the large executable size. My
application uses no extras like PCL, and the executable is still about
2.4 Meg. With CLX loaded it's 3.8 MEg, and with PCL loaded it's 3.4
Meg. with both CLX and PCL it's 5.2 Meg. This is enough to make me
unpopular with the system people once in a while.
Hope this helps,
--
Andrew Thomas
andrewt@watsnew.waterloo.edu Systems Design Eng. University of Waterloo
"If a million people do a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing." - Opusralph@nastassia.laas.fr (Ralph P. Sobek) (07/11/89)
In article <ANDREWT.89Jul7150356@watsnew.waterloo.edu> andrewt@watsnew.waterloo.edu (Andrew Thomas) writes: | | nice. My only complaint about IBCL is the large executable size. My | application uses no extras like PCL, and the executable is still about | 2.4 Meg. With CLX loaded it's 3.8 MEg, and with PCL loaded it's 3.4 | Meg. with both CLX and PCL it's 5.2 Meg. This is enough to make me | unpopular with the system people once in a while. How lucky you are!! We use Sun Common Lisp (3.0) and it's nice but 9 Megs minimum to do anything. We sometimes get two lisps running simultaneously and all of 40 Megs are eaten up!! Ralph P. Sobek Disclaimer: The above ruminations are my own. ralph@laas.laas.fr Addresses are ordered by importance. ralph@laas.uucp, or ...!uunet!mcvax!laas!ralph If all else fails, try: SOBEK@FRMOP11.BITNET sobek@eclair.Berkeley.EDU =============================================================================== Upon the instruments of death the sunlight brightly gleams. -- King Crimson