|
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: jayessay <nos...@foo.com>
Date: 14 Aug 2005 12:04:18 -0400
Local: Sun 14 Aug 2005 17:04
Subject: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
Jon Harrop <use...@jdh30.plus.com> writes: Which Lisps are you talking about? We've already seen where Allegro > Ulrich Hobelmann wrote: > > I wouldn't consider 5 times as slow as a *functional* language very > > competitive, but it might be fast enough for many problems. > Well, it's relative. Most of the other Lisp/Scheme implementations were two is faster than this SBCL timing and it hadn't even been optimized yet. I would be surprised if Lispworks were much different in this regard as well. > Also, MLton often beats g++, so functional languages aren't slow coaches any So do many CL implementations on many benchmarks when "properly" > more... 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 /Jon -- You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||