Newsgroups: comp.lang.dylan,comp.lang.java,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!delmarva.com!internetMCI!newsfeed.internetmci.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!col.hp.com!sdd.hp.com!night.primate.wisc.edu!aplcenmp!hall
From: hall@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu (Marty Hall)
Subject: Re: GC, Java, etc.
Message-ID: <DGLEnz.BvF@aplcenmp.apl.jhu.edu>
Organization: JHU/APL AI Lab, Hopkins P/T CS Faculty
References: <DGGpDx.IGE@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca> <activisDGJr2B.4Ex@netcom.com> <4kUj=Ay00iV8A84qw1@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 12:28:47 GMT
Lines: 20
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.dylan:5434 comp.lang.java:1833 comp.lang.lisp:19545

In article <4kUj=Ay00iV8A84qw1@andrew.cmu.edu> 
"Noah L. Gibbs" <angelbob+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:

>    This also depends on what you mean by compiler.  I consider, e.g.
>Allegro CommonLISP to be interpreted, although the professor of our course
>assured us it was "incrementally compiled".  However, the speed, interact-
>ivity, and every other empirical test indicated it was an
>interpreter.

You can run Lisp code either interpreted or compiled in Allegro Common
Lisp. The Common Lisp standard requires a compiler but not an interpreter.
Your misconceptions about speed indicate that you were unaware of how
to compile it. 

Compiled ACL (and CMUCL, Lucid, and LispWorks), with appropriate
optimization settings and (perhaps) declarations is generally quite
competitive with other compiled languages.

						- Marty
(proclaim '(inline skates))
