Re: Very poor Lisp performance


Jon Harrop wrote:
> Ulrich Hobelmann wrote:
> > I wouldn't consider 5 times as slow as a *functional* language very
> > competitive, but it might be fast enough for many problems.
>
> Well, it's relative. Most of the other Lisp/Scheme implementations were two
> orders of magnitude slower. Stalin gets even closer than SBCL.
>
> Also, MLton often beats g++, so functional languages aren't slow coaches any
> more...

Jon: You may not forget that you are testing for micro benchmarks.
Surely, a Python will never become faster in the long run. However, all
the things will change if we were benchmarking really complicated code
of many thousand of lines.

When I was younger (now I am 31) I also believed benchmarking is a
must. However, in the meantime it is even this: if your ray-tracer in
OCaml were 100000 times faster than the Bigloo-Scheme version I would
not opt for OCaml quickly. Perfromance is important, no question, but
in a code project it is a rather tiny part.


Schneewittchen

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: C++ or Java ?
    ... > Jon Harrop wrote: ... >> many lines in OCaml. ... Lines and "character" ... > 1-2 times difference in actual program size is what I observed. ...
    (comp.os.linux.development.apps)
  • Re: Java or C++?
    ... > Jon Harrop wrote: ... > struct closure_1 { ... The 28 bytes of OCaml code in the original have been transformed manually ... that was the simplest possible example. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: Singleton Pattern
    ... > Jon Harrop wrote: ... >> Michael Feathers wrote: ... >>>If you pass around references to it's access, ... OCaml, there are many alternatives that achieve the same result. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Newbie Question: Is it allowed for the function to change the value of parameters?
    ... Jon Harrop wrote: ... Functions in OCAML are 'functions'. ... let rec loop = ... has to be found in the whole language design and in the borderline ...
    (comp.lang.functional)
  • Re: Ray tracer
    ... > Jon Harrop wrote: ... >> Performance seems to be more important in the Lisp implementations. ... >> magnitude of the performance of the least optimised OCaml on the site. ... than Bigloo at 9/11 of the tests. ...
    (comp.lang.scheme)