In article <··········@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> ······@ma2s2.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de (Bruno Haible) writes:
>A. The BETA language
>
>1. Has an incredible symmetry between data and executable program code.
> Much better than Lisp.
This is useless without some details. All I know is that you think
Beta has an "incredible symmetry".
Most of the rest of the message has the same problem.
>2. Lexically scoped, but a module system ("fragment" system) permits
> to put parts of a program into separate files - effectively splitting
> interface and implementation.
Virtually every Lisp in the universe lets you put parts of the
program in separate files. So what exactly is the issue here?
>7. The ":<" token makes up
> - generic classes (not present in Lisp, you would have to use
> a DEFCLASS in a non-null lexical environment),
So in fact what you mean is *Common* Lisp, not Lisp.
>9. CALL-NEXT-METHOD goes the other way around: the most general method
> determines the general behaviour, the most specific method only
> plays the role of a fixup.
Again more is needed.
>11. Concurrency, i.e. deterministic parallelism. (Would make
> WITH-PACKAGE-ITERATOR and WITH-HASH-TABLE-ITERATOR obsolete in CL.)
I think you are confused about the nature and role of these
iterators. But perhaps not. It's impossible to tell from
the little you say.
>4. Speed:
> consing up 1000 closures into a list
> Mjolner 0.049 sec
> CLISP 0.064 sec
> GCL 0.168 sec
> some integer array hacking
> C 4.2 sec
> Mjolner 111 sec
> GCL 288 sec
> CLISP 415 sec
> (All timings on a 486/33.)
It's necessary to see the code. What declarations did you use
in Common Lisp? Also, try a faster Common Lisp.