Re: Very poor Lisp performance

From: Jens Axel Søgaard <usenet@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:15:36 +0200

Brian Downing wrote:

The problem, as mentioned in another branch of the thread here, is that the Mathematica syntax is incredibly complicated to support some of this flexibility, and the Mathematica evaluator is so /incredibly/ complex as to basically prohibit understanding of what's going to happen when things are evaluated, at least for me.


Yes - the evaluations rules are scary.

First there is the standard evaluation sequence, which consists
of 12 (twelve) steps:

<http://documents.wolfram.com/v5/TheMathematicaBook/MathematicaReferenceGuide/Evaluation/A.4.1.html>

Of course there is also

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
  - From: Joe Marshall
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
  - From: Jon Harrop

References:
- Very poor Lisp performance
  - From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
  - From: Ulrich Hobelmann
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
  - From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
  - From: Peter Seibel
- Re: Very poor Lisp performance
  - From: Brian Downing

Prev by Date: Re: Very poor Lisp performance
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):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: Very poor Lisp performance
... the Mathematica syntax is incredibly complicated to support some of this ... flexibility, and the Mathematica evaluator is so /incredibly/ complex as ... to basically prohibit understanding of what's going to happen when ...
(comp.lang.lisp)
Re: Mathematica evaluation
... the Mathematica syntax is incredibly complicated to support some of this flexibility, and the Mathematica evaluator is so /incredibly/ complex as to basically prohibit understanding of what's going to happen when things are evaluated, at least for me. ... Mathmematica has a rather ill-defined evaluation mechanism, ...
(comp.lang.lisp)