Subject: [clisp-list] Re: Can McCLIM work with CLISP?

From: "Hoehle, Joerg-Cyril" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed Dec 17 09:07:58 2003

Hi,

Sam wrote:
>> I wonder why nobody tries to make PCL work again with CLISP in case
>> they need the MOP.
>because native CLOS is faster?
Native CLOS is IIRC faster precisely because it takes shortcuts which are only possible with the restricted MOP (remembers me of how Smalltalkers try to avoid become: aka change-class) that it implements.

But your's is not an answer IMHO.
Given McCLIM or any other MOP-greedy Lisp code, you don't choose between a faster and a slower implementation of CLOS within CLISP. There's only one choice that seems doable (given little knowledge about CLISP MOP internals): PCL.

Or CLISP's mini-MOP gets expanded further and further, eradicating restrictions. But then I'll bet there will be trade-offs w.r.t. speed, efficiency, and it sounds to me like a major effort.

Regards,
	Jorg Hohle.