Re: Very poor Lisp performance

Luke J Crook wrote:
> How many implementations of Ocaml are there? One. So every developer
> working on Ocaml is hammering that one version. If you want to compare
> Ocaml to an open source language then choose a language for which there
> is but a single implementation; Perl, Python, Parrot, PHP, Ruby etc.

That doesn't really make any sense.

Firstly, the language comparison is with C++, Java and SML as well, all of
which have multiple implementations. Indeed, two implementations of SML are
already on the language comparison. Secondly, of the languages you listed,
at least Perl and Python have multiple implementations. Finally, the number
of implementations is irrelevant.

> If you want to compare Ocaml to a specific implementation of Lisp, then
> target CMUCL, SBCL, CLISP, Lispworks etc. However, if you want to
> compare the performance of Lisp to the performance of Ocaml then choose
> the fastest implementation of Lisp available and run that. Allego,
> Lispworks and Corman (Corman is Windows only) are all free to you for
> this purpose.

We're Linux only, so Corman is out the window. Which of the other Lisp
implementations do you expect to do well at this task?

I'll have a look at Lispworks...

--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: fast scripting language
    ... One can only compare language implementations and one can always improve implementations, so one can never claim to be able to compare languages. ... So yes, non-commercial projects can use commercial software, in this case provided that they are not engaging in commerce. ...
    (comp.lang.misc)
  • Re: Verbose functional languages?
    ... believe it will be difficult to surpass the practical success of OCaml ... are writing good libraries for it). ... because the language was pushed with marketing money. ... Existing FPL implementations like OCaml and Haskell bask in the glory ...
    (comp.lang.functional)
  • Re: Troll-o-Matic
    ... I've switched to timing compilation of the fourth implementations rather ... others now run substantially slower (e.g. OCaml). ... concise than all of the implementations in all other languages except the ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: F# performance benchmarks
    ... If you devote unbounded resources to compiler development, irrespective of language you can always produce optimal code for any arbitrarily large class of programs. ... Hence it makes no sense to compare "language speed". ... The most fair comparison is to pick implementations for which you reasonably expect the most resources were spent in optimizing those implementations. ...
    (comp.lang.functional)
  • Re: Python and Lisp Test
    ... > I tried to come up with equivalent implementations ... > Lisp was the faster language. ... I reduced the argument from 10^6 to 10^5 to save time and added SML, OCaml ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)