On Fri, 8 Oct 2004, Peter Graves wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 at 20:38:11 +0200, Andras Simon wrote:
>> Perhaps this is a good time to ask why you decided to adapt closette,
>> and not pcl (or its CMUCL/SBCL version). Just curious.
> Well, it was a long time ago, and there was really no hope of getting
> ABCL to run PCL at that time. I don't think the CMUCL and SBCL versions
> of PCL are really very portable, despite the name.
Yes, I suppose portability was lost when it got ported (to CMUCL).
> Closette had the advantage of being much smaller and more approachable
> (less than 2000 lines vs. around 20,000 lines for PCL). And at the time
> I started working with Closette I hadn't really decided to do a full
> ANSI CL, so I was even entertaining the crazy idea that Closette might
> end up being enough of a CLOS by itself.
> In the long term I think most of the Closette code will go away and
> ABCL will end up with a more-or-less home-grown CLOS implementation,
I know that ANSI compliance is your no. 1 target, but I hope the
home-grown CLOS will have at least as much of the MOP as closette
> but in the early days Closette provided a useful outline for the code
> and a rough framework to build on. Performance is terrible, but that's
> mostly my fault.
Is it that bad?
The only issue I've had with clos (as it is) is not performance, but
that it requires BAR to be defined before (defclass foo (bar)()) can
be evaluated. But I guess this is one of the known ANSI test failures.