Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.kei.com!newshost.marcam.com!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!vrotney
From: vrotney@netcom.com (William Paul Vrotney)
Subject: Re: Byte code compilers...
In-Reply-To: pinkus@ampere.phys.uva.nl's message of 18 Sep 1995 14:19:14 GMT
Message-ID: <vrotneyDF4oyA.J5H@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <43jv52$ip1@mira.sara.nl>
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 1995 01:18:09 GMT
Lines: 28
Sender: vrotney@netcom.netcom.com

In article <43jv52$ip1@mira.sara.nl> pinkus@ampere.phys.uva.nl () writes:

   I wrote a lisp interpreter, and I'm now finding that speed is
   becoming important for me. Could any one supply me with 
   info on what order of magnitude speed up I can expect 
   (roughly) when I add in a byte-code compiler? (I do want to
   keep it portable...)

   Thanks in advance.
   Ayal Pinkus


If what you mean by byte-code compiler is that the compiler generates byte
codes that are then interpreted by a byte-code interpreter, then you could
get Emacs (free).  Emacs implements a byte-code compiler and interpreter.
You could compare test code using your interpreter then with Emacs, which is
probably (my guess) as fast as your going to get for a p-code interpreter
(anyone know differently?).

I recommend that you FTP Emacs 19 as it includes a pretty full Common Lisp
addition.  You can FTP Emacs 19 from site prep.ai.mit.edu in directory
pub/gnu .



-- 

William P. Vrotney - vrotney@netcom.com
