|
|
comp.lang.lisp |
> Well, it's relative. Most of the other Lisp/Scheme implementations were two > Also, MLton often beats g++, so functional languages aren't slow coaches any When I was younger (now I am 31) I also believed benchmarking is a Schneewittchen Jon Harrop wrote: Jon: You may not forget that you are testing for micro benchmarks.
> 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.
> orders of magnitude slower. Stalin gets even closer than SBCL.
> more...
Surely, a Python will never become faster in the long run. However, all
the things will change if we were benchmarking really complicated code
of many thousand of lines.
must. However, in the meantime it is even this: if your ray-tracer in
OCaml were 100000 times faster than the Bigloo-Scheme version I would
not opt for OCaml quickly. Perfromance is important, no question, but
in a code project it is a rather tiny part.