Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: heli...@mindspring.com (Rayiner Hashem)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Lisp vs. Scheme
Date: 20 Sep 2003 10:16:03 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 7
Message-ID: <a3995c0d.0309200916.6e290cdc@posting.google.com>
References: <b295356a.0309181447.44dbee87@posting.google.com> <uNHab.39083$NM1.30169@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> <sfwd6dwli20.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <8b9e2260.0309191700.533e359b@posting.google.com> <z-icnQEUoPzPs_GiXTWc-g@speakeasy.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.100.13.209
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1064078164 15368 127.0.0.1 (20 Sep 2003 17:16:04 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Sep 2003 17:16:04 GMT

> Said another way, I use both CLISP & CMUCL all the time as "lightweight
> scripting languages"...
It depends on what you want to do. CMUCL has a rather large memory
footprint. If you're writing a system script, that's fine, but it
might not be appropriate for something like an embedded scripting
language in an application, because the CMUCL runtime will have a big
impact on the cache and memory footprint of the host application.