Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- From: Jon Harrop <jon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:19:33 +0100
Marco Antoniotti wrote:
Yes, sure. I cheated by making Juho's example 162 lines. :) I suppose
we can cheat in many other ways.
Much of the Lisp code is wasted performing tedious manual deconstructions of
data structures because Lisp lacks pattern matching. I wonder how much more
reasonable the code might look if you pull in cl-unification.
--
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/?u
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- From: Stanisław Halik
- Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- From: jon . harrop . ms . sharp
- Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- References:
- Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- From: jon . harrop . ms . sharp
- Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- From: Marco Antoniotti
- Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- From: Jon Harrop
- Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- From: Marco Antoniotti
- Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- Prev by Date: Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- Next by Date: Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- Previous by thread: Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- Next by thread: Re: SBCL is now faster than Java, as fast as Ocaml, and getting better
- Index(es):