Re: Very poor Lisp performance

Jon Harrop wrote:
Brian Downing wrote:
In article <m2iry1q2j6.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 

Not really. It took me 4 days to write a mini-Mathematica implementation in
OCaml. Once you are familiar with Mathematica, it is fairly obvious what's
going on "under the hood".

There's certainly no concept of "macroexpansion time" and "run time" like
there is in CL, 

So you cannot use macros to generate code to generate macros to generate
code in Lisp?


Separation of macroexpansion time and run time is essential in order
to allow efficient compilation of the code. If you mix the two, chances
are you end up with an "interpreter only" language.

--
Jens Axel Søgaard
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CL failure stories?
    ... Mathematica version also does this. ... That's vastly better than the original Lisp code! ... In SML and OCaml you would write eval yourself. ... - fun eval state = fn ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Benefits of Dynamic Typing
    ... I agree that there are many Lisp programmers who believe that. ... I would say that Lisp has been displaced by faster languages ... From your point of view and experience Mathematica might ... > there who don't want to program with tied hands in OCaml or ML? ...
    (comp.lang.functional)
  • Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
    ... many other interesting features that haven't originated from Lisp (e.g. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
    ... be implemented easily in Lisp because they are intrinsically complicated. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: why do you choose LISP?
    ... i like lisp primarily bceause it is a functional lang. ... It is also during the early 1990s, i started to learn programing on my ... during these years i bought Mathematica (because i heard it's the ... I do not have any concrete idea what IS a language specification ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)