Re: testing a new Clisp Windows installer

[Raymond T. <toy...@gm...>]

>>>>> "Wolfgang" == Wolfgang Dautermann <wol...@da...> writes:

    Wolfgang> On 2016-06-29 21:20, Pascal J. Bourguignon wrote:
    >> See Joerg's answers.

    Wolfgang> Yes, thank you. I can change the text. Would the following be okay - and
    Wolfgang> correct?

    Wolfgang> -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Wolfgang> Clisp
    Wolfgang> -----
    Wolfgang> Clisp includes GNU readline support, so Maxima has advanced command-line
    Wolfgang> editing facilities when built with it.

Readline is optional; I sometimes forget to enable it and compile
clisp to include such support. (Or because I don't have the right
libraries already installed or whatever.)

    Wolfgang> Clisp is compiled to bytecodes, so Maxima running on Clisp is
    Wolfgang> substantially slower than on Lisps compiled to machine instructions.

My personal opinion: I wouldn't make such a blanket statement; it
really depends on what you're doing.  Number crunching is slow, yes,
but I suspect clisp on symbolic stuff is pretty good.  (The testsuite
does a lot of numerics so it's not a great test.)  For bignum work,
clisp is as fast as or faster than other lisps that compile to native
code.

--
Ray