I am interested in opinions of Harlequin's LispWorks, especially in
the following areas:
a) reliability
b) adherence to the common lisp standard
c) performance (especially on SPARC), image size
d) quality of CLOS implementation (especially adherence to standard)
e) quality of garbage collection and multi-threading extensions.
The discussions on this group usually mention Allegro or Lucid, which
seems to imply that these two dominate the market. Is this true? If so
are there technical (as opposed to market and marketing factors) for
the situation.
I will summarize if appropriate.
Thanks
|Bryan M. Kramer 416-978-7330, fax 416-978-1455|
|Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto |
|6 King's College Road, Room 283E |
|Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A4 |
>I am interested in opinions of Harlequin's LispWorks, especially in
>the following areas:
>a) reliability
>b) adherence to the common lisp standard
>c) performance (especially on SPARC), image size
>d) quality of CLOS implementation (especially adherence to standard)
>e) quality of garbage collection and multi-threading extensions.
>Thanks
>|Bryan M. Kramer
Without going into a thourough analysis, I would say:
a) It is 90% reliable, there is some problems with
the Xwindows environment (Is Xwindows reliable?)
b) It excedes the standard (and adheres), especially with
Prolog included.
c) It runs fast, (no metrics) the problem seems to be with
the windowing, I found it to run faster in motif than
Openlook, and much faster with 40megs of RAM.
d) No problems that I have found.
e) GC is configurable, multithreading processes works find, but
they are lightweight processes.
f) In all I am quite impressed with the environment. I feel
that it provides me with the tools and the performance
I want. The big plus for me however is the seamless
addition of KnowledgeWorks for adding rules.
Sincerely,
Wayne Peterson
ATSD, Honeywell, Phoenix