Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!lenngray
From: lenngray@netcom.com (Lenny Gray)
Subject: Re: Comparison: Beta - Lisp
Message-ID: <lenngrayCvunsr.448@netcom.com>
Followup-To: comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.lisp
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <34n2qe$d74@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 06:38:50 GMT
Lines: 22
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.beta:12 comp.lang.lisp:14545

Bruno Haible (haible@ma2s2.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de) wrote:

: ...
:    some integer array hacking
:          C            4.2 sec
:          Mjolner    111 sec
:          GCL        288 sec
:          CLISP      415 sec
:    (All timings on a 486/33.)
: ...

Are these numbers right?  I've seriously used GCL and CLISP myself and
had some arguments with a "true believer Lisper" who thought "Lisp _does_
compete reasonably with C for numeric stuff", but I never bothered to do
the timing tests, and always assumed it wasn't this bad.  Is it, really?

Also, I was interested in Beta until one minute ago, because of this.
Are there intrinsic reasons for this that will prevent it from ever
improving?

- Lenny Gray -

