Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!news.uni-c.dk!sunic!uunet!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!psuvax1!psuvax1.cse.psu.edu!schwartz
From: schwartz@roke.cse.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Comparison: Beta - Lisp
Date: 10 Sep 1994 22:05:17 GMT
Organization: Penn State Comp Sci & Eng
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <SCHWARTZ.94Sep10180517@roke.cse.psu.edu>
References: <34n2qe$d74@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> <lenngrayCvunsr.448@netcom.com>
	<34t6t1$1ep@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: roke.cse.psu.edu
In-reply-to: haible@ma2s2.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de's message of 10 Sep 1994 21:02:25 GMT
Xref: news.daimi.aau.dk comp.lang.beta:27 comp.lang.lisp:13210

haible@ma2s2.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de (Bruno Haible) writes:
   Lenny Gray <lenngray@netcom.com> wrote:
   > Also, I was interested in Beta until one minute ago, because of this.

   If their compiler did more optimizations, the Mjolner
   timings certainly would be much closer to the C timings.

Contrast with the strategy of the Sather group: their compiler started
out by doing better than C++ on some microbenchmarks.  That's what it
takes to win supporters in real life.