Newsgroups: comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.lisp Path: news.daimi.aau.dk!news.uni-c.dk!sunic!ugle.unit.no!nac.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!lenngray From: lenngray@netcom.com (Lenny Gray) Subject: Re: Comparison: Beta - Lisp Message-ID: Followup-To: comp.lang.beta,comp.lang.lisp Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1] References: <34n2qe$d74@nz12.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 06:38:50 GMT Lines: 22 Xref: news.daimi.aau.dk comp.lang.beta:14 comp.lang.lisp:13156 Bruno Haible (haible@ma2s2.mathematik.uni-karlsruhe.de) wrote: : ... : some integer array hacking : C 4.2 sec : Mjolner 111 sec : GCL 288 sec : CLISP 415 sec : (All timings on a 486/33.) : ... Are these numbers right? I've seriously used GCL and CLISP myself and had some arguments with a "true believer Lisper" who thought "Lisp _does_ compete reasonably with C for numeric stuff", but I never bothered to do the timing tests, and always assumed it wasn't this bad. Is it, really? Also, I was interested in Beta until one minute ago, because of this. Are there intrinsic reasons for this that will prevent it from ever improving? - Lenny Gray -