Message from discussion Very poor Lisp performance

Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!nntp-peering.plus.net!ptn-nntp-feeder01.plus.net!ptn-nntp-spool01.plus.net!ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net!not-for-mail
Message-Id: <42ff662a$0$97128$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>
From: Jon Harrop <use...@jdh30.plus.com>
Subject: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:38:55 +0100
References: <42fdd7a8$0$97130$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net> <2005081321013216807%raffaelcavallaro@pasdespamsilvousplaitmaccom> <42ff04a9$0$78285$157c6196@dreader1.cybercity.dk> <42ff1c6e$0$1279$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net> <3m95opF15sleiU1@individual.net>
Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
User-Agent: KNode/0.8.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.229.56.224
X-Trace: 1124034090 ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net 97128 80.229.56.224:39839

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
orders of magnitude slower. Stalin gets even closer than SBCL.

Also, MLton often beats g++, so functional languages aren't slow coaches any
more...

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com