Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hobelmann@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:19:53 +0200
Jon Harrop wrote:
On my 1.8GHz AMD64 in 32-bit mode with SBCL 0.9.3 I'm now getting:
5.21 seconds of real time 4.15 seconds of user run time 0.62 seconds of system run time 0 page faults and 509,569,248 bytes consed
This seems to be on-par with other people's observations.
This compares to 1.037s for OCaml and 0.987s for C++, so SBCL is now much more competitive.
I wouldn't consider 5 times as slow as a *functional* language very competitive, but it might be fast enough for many problems.
-- I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it. Dogbert .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Matthias Buelow
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- References:
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Raffael Cavallaro
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Svenne Krap
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Prev by Date: Re: Which Emacs on Mac OS X?
- Next by Date: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Previous by thread: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Next by thread: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading