giant@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Buc Richards) (08/15/89)
So who has the 1.0 release (or was that 0.981) from NeXT. Why is everyone so quite, what I really want to know is how good is the Allegro Common Lisp implementation? Thanks Buc
layer@akbar.COM (Kevin Layer) (08/16/89)
In article <4338@lindy.Stanford.EDU> giant@lindy.Stanford.EDU (Buc Richards) writes: >... what I really want to know is how good is the >Allegro Common Lisp implementation? Well, Franz Inc. being the provider of Allegro CL on the NeXT, I think rather nice. We've tried to take full advantage of Mach, where possible, which itself is very nice. For example, DUMPLISP creates a Mach-O file which causes segments to be mapped to their proper address, without having to shuffle memory around after restarting the image. Also, we use file mapping for foreign functions. In the future, we hope to use Mach threads for Allegro CL multi-processing/stack groups. Aside from these differences, Allegro CL 3.1 on the NeXT has the same features that other versions of Allegro CL 3.1. Kevin Layer, Franz Inc. 1995 University Avenue, Suite 275 layer@Franz.COM (internet) Berkeley, CA 94704 uunet!franz!layer (uucp) Phone: (415) 548-3600; FAX: (415) 548-8253