Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- From: Ariel <no@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 11:04:48 -0700
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:20:01 +0100
Jon Harrop <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ariel wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:01:20 +0100
Jon Harrop <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John Thingstad wrote:
Just earlier this week I made a program to compute prime numbers.
It found all primes < 1000000 in 1.015 seconds.
That is just as fast as the same algorithm in C...
Yes, of course. That task is so simple that Lisp's deficiencies are not
relevant.
Saying that a task is too simple doesn't give your argument any weight,
some languages process sleep cycles faster than others, so what. If
instead you had said something like "it avoids these specific slower
functions of Lisp" such that to actually show where slowness occurs in the
language, it would become a helpful comment.
My original point was that Lisp makes high-level programming slow. For
example, high-level abstract constructs like pattern matching are heavily
optimized by the compilers of all modern functional languages but Lisp is
incapable of anything comparable (without drastically changing the language
and Greenspunning modern language features).
John's response that Lisp can compete with C on a low-level program is true
for trivial problems but neither relevant to my point nor interesting in
the context of real programming (unless you are trying to solve problems so
simple that it is feasible for you to use C).
Fortunately, modern functional languages are so much more effective than
Lisp that you don't have to study much more complicated programs (e.g. the
Mersenne Twister rather than a prime sieve) to appreciate just how far in
advance these modern languages are.
This post just lost you all credibility in my eyes. Good day, Jon Harrop.
-a
.
- References:
- Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- From: Vend
- Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- From: Robert Maas, http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
- Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- From: Ariel
- Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- From: John Thingstad
- Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- From: Ariel
- Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- Prev by Date: Re: How to avoid GC in tight numeric test loop? (CMUCL)
- Next by Date: Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- Previous by thread: Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- Next by thread: Re: Parallel Common-Lisp with at least 64 processors?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
