2 ms·
If memory serves, traditionally, CCL (Clozure Common Lisp [0]) had better support for Windows but SBCL was unbeatable for speed. Is that still the case? [0] h
by WalterGR 3mo ago
If memory serves, traditionally, CCL (Clozure Common Lisp [0]) had better support for Windows but SBCL was unbeatable for speed. Is that still the case?
[0] https://ccl.clozure.com/ https://ccl.clozure.com/
- jorams 3mo agoSBCL works fine on Windows. It used to display a warning about fragility at startup, but that was removed in version 2.0.3, 6 years ago, after already being obsolete for quite a while. CCL isn't very actively maintained and currently doesn't have an ARM64 port, but otherwise continues to work fine. I believe one reason people use it is that it compiles a bit faster than SBCL, at least in part by doing less optimization.
- pfdietz 2mo agoUsing two implementations also helps identify portability issues coming from places the standard doesn't specify behavior sufficiently.
- GalaxyNova 2mo agoBut CCL is very stable and works very well on the platforms it supports, sometimes in a much more compliant way than SBCL.
- p_l 3mo agoPart of why SBCL took longer is, IIRC, that SBCL went with embedding proper SEH support into generated code (important among other things to get page fault information), whereas CCL used VEH (which is simpler to use but only available from XP onwards)