scsh-users
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comparison between emacs, clisp, scsh for scripts.

To: Pascal Bourguignon <too.much.spam@example.com>
Subject: Re: Comparison between emacs, clisp, scsh for scripts.
From: Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 10:30:44 +0200
Cc: scsh-news@zurich.ai.mit.edu
>>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Bourguignon <too.much.spam@example.com> writes:

Pascal> --------------  ------------------  ------------------  
------------------
Pascal>                      emacs                scsh                clisp
Pascal> --------------  ------------------  ------------------  
------------------


Pascal> Running a small compiled script ten times:

Pascal> Real Time:               0m10.822s                                
0m6.603s
Pascal> User Time:               0m03.250s                                
0m1.400s
Pascal> System Time:             0m00.110s                                
0m0.440s


Why do you omit scsh here? I don't expect scsh to compete with the
others here but using dumped heap images is a huge time saver for
bigger scripts.

Pascal> --------------  ------------------  ------------------  
------------------
Pascal> Documentation:         Good                 Bad                 Fair
Pascal>                 (in-line doc,        (no in-line doc.   (minimal in-line
Pascal>                 (describe-function,  reference split    doc (describe,
Pascal>                  describe-variable,  between several    apropos),
Pascal>                  apropos, info,...)  docs (scsh,        Common-Lisp 
Ref.)
Pascal>                 easily accessible    scheme)).
Pascal>                 on-line full
Pascal>                 reference, etc).

Scsh comes with a extensive manual in various formats (PS, PDF, HTML)
and a constantly growing manual for the S48 part. I don't think the
lack of integration with the rest of the system makes this a "bad
documentation".


-- 
Martin

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>