Re: Writing a Compiler: Lisp or Scheme or Haskell?

On May 26, 3:12 pm, Tamas K Papp <tkp...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 26 May 2009 10:20:29 -0700, Isaac Gouy wrote:
On May 26, 12:32 am, Nicolas Neuss <lastn...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
-snip-
I think the real difference is the competence of Peter Norvig compared
with the incompetence of the people running the Shootout or the
incompetence and malignity of a certain spammer usually favorizing his
own ray-tracer benchmark.

Nicolas

[*]http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.scheme/browse_thread/thread/...

In that comp.lang.scheme discussion you seem quite proudly to proclaim
your ignorance of the benchmarks game - ignorance achieved simply by not
looking at it for the last 3 or 4 years.

Given that context, why should anyone care what you think about the
benchmarks game?

Nicolas has developed Femlisp, and did quite a bit of numerical work in
CL.  That certainly makes me care about his opinion, which I also
consider infinitely more relevant for practical purpose than some
game of benchmarks.

Tamas


That should make you care about his opinion on things Lisp in which he
is an expert.

On other topics his opinion may be uninformed and plain wrong, even
about things we might expect a high-school student to get right simply
by bothering to read the information:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/a43b15db2c9f4f18



I am curious about the attitude Nicolas Neuss seems to express (which
I may have misread) because I think those outside the Lisp bubble
might well take away a rather negative impression.

No one but Lispers made a fuss about the changes 3 or 4 years ago (let
alone continue to make a fuss).

Is it so hard to write a competent program in Lisp that 100 line
programs are a major investment of time? Are those trivial programs so
difficult that they need a Lisp implementor to write them? Is the Lisp
community now so small that there are no workaday programmers capable
of doing a good job on trivial programs - just newbies and language
implementors?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Help with one benchmark test needed
    ... Foremostly, set exclusivly operates on global variables, doesn't keep the local contexts of different functions separated, and is probably very inefficient. ... Now, I'm sure that if you think carefully, you'll find quite a few good reasons why benchmarks do not necessarily to implement best possible algorithm/data structure for a given problem. ... If you think that putting them on single lines, then you simply don't have enough experience with programming in Lisp and using the right editors to support Lisp syntax. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Help with one benchmark test needed
    ... The Lisp style you write went out of fashion maybe twenty years ... > Real time: 0.8125 sec. ... > NIL ... especially not in benchmarks because it is a very slow ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: a potential lisp convert, and interpreting the shootout
    ... Jon Harrop wrote: ... FPLs, including Lisp. ... If I were to create a shootout, I would use benchmarks with variable inputs ... best solved using such trees, rather than trying to force programmers to ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Statically AND Dynamically Typed Language ??
    ... thrash Lisp at this and almost all other benchmarks. ... solved in languages like OCaml and Lisp are simply not represented. ... The shootout maintainer, Isaac Gouy, subjectively "deoptimizes" submitted ... For example, he crippled the OCaml ...
    (comp.lang.misc)
  • Re: a potential lisp convert, and interpreting the shootout
    ... FPLs, including Lisp. ... If I were to create a shootout, I would use benchmarks with variable inputs ... best solved using such trees, rather than trying to force programmers to ... Objective CAML for Scientists ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)