Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp.x
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!plug.news.pipex.net!pipex!nielsen.co.uk!peer-news.britain.eu.net!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: C/Lisp/Python/Tcl - yet another performance comparision
Message-ID: <DLnFCF.GpF.0.macbeth@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <DMITRY.96Jan16220951@pavel.physics.sunysb.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 19:26:38 GMT
Lines: 12

In article <DMITRY.96Jan16220951@pavel.physics.sunysb.edu> dmitry@pavel.physics.sunysb.edu (Dima Zinoviev) writes:
>Hi folks!
>
>The following performance comparision of the more or less popular
>interpreted languages (including C++ and GNU awk as reference points)
>has been done using the code of Chris Trimble posted a few days ago to
>some of these newsgroups

Are your two Lisps (xlisp and clisp) both interpreted?  If so,
they're not all that representative of "Lisp".

-- jd
