Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!nntp.et.byu.edu!news.kei.com!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: case for Lisp
Message-ID: <D49D0D.J1M@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <3h2n14$164@necco.harvard.edu> <TMB.95Feb15060552@netcom4.netcom.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 1995 17:38:37 GMT
Lines: 17

In article <TMB.95Feb15060552@netcom4.netcom.com> tmb@netcom4.netcom.com (Thomas Breuel) writes:
>
>You probably missed the last time this thread went around: besides
>the rather large runtime, CommonLisp has a serious problem with space
>for certain data structures compared to C.  In particular, small
>structures containing numerical and/or character data can easily
>require several times as much space in CommonLisp than in C.  That is
>because of space overhead for extra pointers and type information
>that cannot realistically be eliminated in a CL implementation.

BTW, C has a similar problem when compared to Common Lisp in
some cases, because Lisp represents conses (hence lists) more
efficiently that what you'll get with malloc.

-- j


