jayessay wrote:
> Jon Harrop <use...@jdh30.plus.com> writes:
>>Well, it's relative. Most of the other Lisp/Scheme implementations were two
>>orders of magnitude slower. Stalin gets even closer than SBCL.
> So do many CL implementations on many benchmarks when "properly"
> written.  Several have been shown here in the past.  Typically this
> starts with the original posting "showing" how bad CL is supposed to
> be when comparing optimized C/C++ with naively written CL.  It also
> often ends with the CL version beating the optimized C/C++ version.

> Most typical of all is that such benchmarks (including this ray
> tracing thing) don't have much of anything interesting to say about
> anything.