* Martin Cracauer wrote:
> For Common Lisp, I'm unsatisfied mostly with CLOS. It's flexibility
> greatly damages possible performance improvements and it is not very
> integrated with the rest of the system. A dylan-like OO system with
> sealing and standard types beeing normal classes would be nicer.
I'd be interested in knowing if CLOS performance really is inherently
very bad. Naively I would guess that it must be poor, because of all
the redefinition stuff, but is it really true that it must be bad?
There's a paper by some Symbolics people
(http://www.apl.jhu.edu/~hall/text/Papers/CLOS-Optimizations.text)
which talks about hjow they made their CLOS fast(er), which seems to
imply that most of the improvements are not dependent on weird
hardware, but I'm not sure if it's really right.
Alternatively, if you're willing to do without MI, then presumably
it should be easy to make methods defined on structure classes go fast
because you don't have to deal with class redefinition?
--tim