On Apr 21, 9:09 am, Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just a quick note now, maybe more later:
<SNIP> Hi Martin, > > "I know of three open source implementations of lisp that do not need to > > bootstrap themselves" > > What's wrong with bootstrapping, and in particular with > sbcl?http://www.sbcl.org/platform-table.html I like sbcl and it works well. > Do you insist on building the lisp from scratch? Yes. > If so, why? Shipping binaries is not an option due to size constraints. Requiring some external version of lisp is tricky and Maxima for example behaves differently, i.e. default precision of floats is different, with different lisp implementations. And Sage is supposed to be a compile from scratch & self hosting experience and while it usually isn't a problem to find or install some version of lisp on Linux it is a pain to do so on Windows or OSX. And Sage is supposed to be "easy" to install and run and every external requirement makes it more complicated. There are also important Sage users who greatly appreciate the fact that every bit in Sage can be delivered in source. > In any case, I think that clisp is not a very good choice for FriCAS except > that it is available almost everwhere. SBCL based FriCAS is *a lot* faster. > I > do not have a clisp version handy, but SBCL vs. GCL makes a *factor* of 2 for, > eg., guessing. CLISP is still slower. Yes, we are well aware that clisp is quite bad performance wise compared to gcl and especially sbcl, but we prefer a buildable lisp over a potentially faster version that creates even more build problems. <SNIP> > Martin Cheers, Michael --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
