Jocelyn wrote:
> Also, how does Poplog Common Lisp compare with e.g. SBCL?
There have been some published performance tables including poplog
and other systems. I don't know how many. One I have found is this
one:
http://www.cons.org/cmucl/benchmarks/index.html
It seems that Poplog lisp was able to run all but three of the
tests, and was generally a little slower than SBCL, but on a few
things *much* slower, and on some things faster.
It also did better than the 'reference' system on some things, as
did SBCL.
> Can I recommend
> it as an up-to-date implementation, with the features and utilities one
> would expect in other Common Lisps?
Most of them but not all. This file, last updated in June 1995,
lists omissions in Poplog Common lisp:
http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/poplog/doc/lisphelp/bugs
If the standard has changed since then there may be more omissions.
Aaron
