> Probably doesn't meet your intent, but this is a really impressive bit > of (whacky) art:
Lisp runs faster than C. Once you get more time away from screwing Palestinians, and other false-flags, you will find ideas like these
How to make Lisp go faster than C Didier Verna Abstract Contrary to popular belief, Lisp code can be very ef- cient today: it can run as fast as equivalent C code or even faster in some cases. In this paper, we explain how to tune Lisp code for performance by introducing the proper type declarations, using the appropriate data structures and compiler information. We also explain how e ciency is achieved by the compilers. These techniques are applied to simple image process- ing algorithms in order to demonstrate the announced performance on pixel access and arithmetic operations in both languages.
Hey Racist and INcompetent FBI Bustards, where is the ANTHRAX Mailer ? Where are the 4 blackboxes ? Where are the Pentagon Videos ? Why did you release the 5 dancing Israelis compromising the whole 911 investigation ? If the Dubai Police can catch Mossad Murderers and put the videos and Iranian Police can why cant you put the Pentagon Videos ? If Iran police can put the AMERICAN TERRORIST, Riggi and puting on INTERNATIONAL MEDIA a day after catching him without TORTURE, why cant you put the INNOCENT patsies on the MEDIA. Why did you have to LIE about Dr Afiya Siddiqui and torture that Innocent little mother of 3 and smashing the skull of her one child ?
There are CRIMINAL cases against CIA CRIMINAL Bustards in Italian courts.
FBI bustards paid a penalty of $5.8 million to Steven Hatfill, but only because he was a white. They got away with MURDER of thousands of Non-whites in all parts of the world.
> > Probably doesn't meet your intent, but this is a really impressive bit > > of (whacky) art:
> Lisp runs faster than C. Once you get more time away from screwing > Palestinians, and other false-flags, you will find ideas like these
> How to make Lisp go faster than C > Didier Verna > Abstract > Contrary to popular belief, Lisp code can be very ef- > cient today: it can run as fast as equivalent C code > or even faster in some cases. In this paper, we explain > how to tune Lisp code for performance by introducing > the proper type declarations, using the appropriate > data structures and compiler information. We also > explain how e ciency is achieved by the compilers. > These techniques are applied to simple image process- > ing algorithms in order to demonstrate the announced > performance on pixel access and arithmetic operations > in both languages.
> Hey Racist and INcompetent FBI Bustards, where is the ANTHRAX Mailer ? > Where are the 4 blackboxes ? Where are the Pentagon Videos ? Why did > you release the 5 dancing Israelis compromising the whole 911 > investigation ? If the Dubai Police can catch Mossad Murderers and put > the videos and Iranian Police can why cant you put the Pentagon > Videos ? If Iran police can put the AMERICAN TERRORIST, Riggi and > puting on INTERNATIONAL MEDIA a day after catching him without > TORTURE, why cant you put the INNOCENT patsies on the MEDIA. Why did > you have to LIE about Dr Afiya Siddiqui and torture that Innocent > little mother of 3 and smashing the skull of her one child ?
> There are CRIMINAL cases against CIA CRIMINAL Bustards in Italian > courts.
> FBI bustards paid a penalty of $5.8 million to Steven Hatfill, but > only because he was a white. They got away with MURDER of thousands of > Non-whites in all parts of the world.
> > > Probably doesn't meet your intent, but this is a really impressive bit > > > of (whacky) art:
> > Lisp runs faster than C. Once you get more time away from screwing > > Palestinians, and other false-flags, you will find ideas like these
> > How to make Lisp go faster than C > > Didier Verna > > Abstract > > Contrary to popular belief, Lisp code can be very ef- > > cient today: it can run as fast as equivalent C code > > or even faster in some cases. In this paper, we explain > > how to tune Lisp code for performance by introducing > > the proper type declarations, using the appropriate > > data structures and compiler information. We also > > explain how e ciency is achieved by the compilers. > > These techniques are applied to simple image process- > > ing algorithms in order to demonstrate the announced > > performance on pixel access and arithmetic operations > > in both languages.
> > ======= > > Standard Disclaimer, nothing personal
> > Hey Racist and INcompetent FBI Bustards, where is the ANTHRAX Mailer ? > > Where are the 4 blackboxes ? Where are the Pentagon Videos ? Why did > > you release the 5 dancing Israelis compromising the whole 911 > > investigation ? If the Dubai Police can catch Mossad Murderers and put > > the videos and Iranian Police can why cant you put the Pentagon > > Videos ? If Iran police can put the AMERICAN TERRORIST, Riggi and > > puting on INTERNATIONAL MEDIA a day after catching him without > > TORTURE, why cant you put the INNOCENT patsies on the MEDIA. Why did > > you have to LIE about Dr Afiya Siddiqui and torture that Innocent > > little mother of 3 and smashing the skull of her one child ?
> > There are CRIMINAL cases against CIA CRIMINAL Bustards in Italian > > courts.
> > FBI bustards paid a penalty of $5.8 million to Steven Hatfill, but > > only because he was a white. They got away with MURDER of thousands of > > Non-whites in all parts of the world.
Hey Racist and INcompetent FBI Bustards, where is the ANTHRAX Mailer ? Where are the 4 blackboxes ? Where are the Pentagon Videos ? Why did you release the 5 dancing Israelis compromising the whole 911 investigation ? If the Dubai Police can catch Mossad Murderers and put the videos and Iranian Police can why cant you put the Pentagon Videos ? If Iran police can put the AMERICAN TERRORIST, Riggi and puting on INTERNATIONAL MEDIA a day after catching him without TORTURE, why cant you put the INNOCENT patsies on the MEDIA. Why did you have to LIE about Dr Afiya Siddiqui and torture that Innocent little mother of 3 and smashing the skull of her one child ?
There are CRIMINAL cases against CIA CRIMINAL Bustards in Italian courts.
FBI bustards paid a penalty of $5.8 million to Steven Hatfill, but only because he was a white. They got away with MURDER of thousands of Non-whites in all parts of the world.
Conclusion : FBI bustards are RACIST and INcompetent. They could neither catch the ANTHRAX or 911 YANK/Jew criminals nor could they cover them up - whichever was their actual task.
SLASH the SALARIES of FBI/CIA/NSA etc BUSTARDS into half all across tbe board, esp the whites/jew on the top.
For crying out loud, the best any compiler can do is make optimal machine language. Many C compilers can do that over most inputs. So can many Lisp compilers if you give the right type data. So it's a moot point.
The only point to discuss would be that Scheme - in the R5 version of the spec at least - doesn't have standard way to specify type data unless I am mistaken. Therefore you will find that Scheme compilers add their own syntax for it. Again we are led to a moot point.
One point that might be interesting, you do include C++ in your post. Therefore some compare/contrast of C++ class member function invocation rate versus Lisp object method invocation rate might be meaningful. I'm sure if you Google back through comp.lang.lisp you will find plenty on it already.
> For crying out loud, the best any compiler can do is make optimal > machine language. Many C compilers can do that over most inputs. So
Is that why I had to use assembly code instead of C for some parts of my previous projects?
There was even one example where the C compiler made spectacularly bad code. I only needed 6 pointer registers (the arch has 8), but the compiler decided to use only one or two and spilled and reloaded them from the stack for each use. Yay!
fortunatus wrote: > The only point to discuss would be that Scheme - in the R5 version of > the spec at least - doesn't have standard way to specify type data > unless I am mistaken. Therefore you will find that Scheme compilers > add their own syntax for it. Again we are led to a moot point.
One of the points of something like Chez Scheme is that it compiles standard Scheme, without additional static typing -- which, personally, I find rather annoying -- into code that is often quite competitive with C code if not faster.
More specifically, there is nothing inherently slow about the Scheme language. While there are some things that are inherently expensive, they are not more expensive than the equivalent constructs in C by nature. Scheme can be compiled into very fast code, without resorting to tricks like type declarations, and there are real life compilers out there which do this.
I've heard it said, it is easy to beat C compilers for fast code, it's just hard to beat them at benchmarks written for C. That is, do the same type of things as what Scheme gives you, such as lots of dynamic allocation and resizing, higher order functions, and closures, and you won't find C faster. Benchmarks to compare C with Scheme often don't compare the things Scheme is good at, but focus only on the static things that C was designed for.
On 2010-06-15, Aaron W. Hsu <arcf...@sacrideo.us> wrote:
> I've heard it said, it is easy to beat C compilers for fast code, it's > just hard to beat them at benchmarks written for C. That is, do the same > type of things as what Scheme gives you, such as lots of dynamic > allocation and resizing, higher order functions, and closures, and you > won't find C faster.
I don't know about that...
It's hard to beat the speed of a program that segfaults immediately. ;)
It's hardly fair if you're going to demand that the C program actually works correctly.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:42:51 +0300, Captain Obvious wrote: > NP> Maybe (equalp bolega gavino) but not eq. > NP> Note the disclaimer which is untypical for NP> the original gavino.
> As I understand that was a quote from another guy.
> nanothermite911fbibustards: > "I give good help and I ask people to spread the info in my sig by > quoting it."
Doing that put him in my killfile. Quoting off-topic gibberish is not good manners either.
But I was already suspicious of this guy being gavino 2.0. He kept asking very general and broad questions, while giving no indication that he writes actual code.
> But I was already suspicious of this guy being gavino 2.0.
I think it's important to understand that gavinos are non-denumerable (proof of this is left as an exercise - it is a fairly obvious diagonalisation argument), so it's not really correct to refer to them by numbers like 2.0, or at least not without saying that it is an approximation (maybe this was implicit of course, in which case I apologise). I believe that gavinos are normally mapped to [0, 1) in fact, though I'm not an expert in the field.
On Jun 15, 9:26 am, Tim Bradshaw <t...@tfeb.org> wrote:
> On 2010-06-15 13:30:45 +0100, Tamas K Papp said: > > But I was already suspicious of this guy being gavino 2.0. > I think it's important to understand that gavinos are non-denumerable > (proof of this is left as an exercise - it is a fairly obvious > diagonalisation argument), so it's not really correct to refer to them > by numbers like 2.0, or at least not without saying that it is an > approximation (maybe this was implicit of course, in which case I > apologise). I believe that gavinos are normally mapped to [0, 1) in > fact, though I'm not an expert in the field.
Gavinos are the supersymmetric partners of gavons. You may think that bolega and gavino are never seen together because they're the same person, but it's really the Pauli Exclusion Principle at work.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:26:47 +0100, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On 2010-06-15 13:30:45 +0100, Tamas K Papp said:
>> But I was already suspicious of this guy being gavino 2.0.
> I think it's important to understand that gavinos are non-denumerable > (proof of this is left as an exercise - it is a fairly obvious > diagonalisation argument), so it's not really correct to refer to them > by numbers like 2.0, or at least not without saying that it is an > approximation (maybe this was implicit of course, in which case I > apologise). I believe that gavinos are normally mapped to [0, 1) in > fact, though I'm not an expert in the field.
I think that a finite state continuous-time Markov process is a good model for gavinos. They arrive with a Poisson rate of about 1-5/year (remains to be estimated), then alternate between a "dormant" and "active" state (only in the case of reentrant gavinos only, of course, otherwise they don't come back from the dormant state). In the "active" state, they post nonsense occasionally.
If this is a good model, then gavinos are denumerable by construction. But the 2.0 was referring to the level of sophistication. This one reached the level of Emacs doctor mode, at least.
Norbert_Paul <norbertpauls_spam...@yahoo.com> writes: > Tamas K Papp wrote: >> Doing that put him in my killfile. Quoting off-topic gibberish is not >> good manners either. > Interesting!!!
> What is a killfile?
As its name implies...
> Which news-reader do you use?
That this question can even be asked!
> I always wanted to be able to filter news but Iceape won't let me.
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:26:54 +0200, Norbert_Paul wrote: > Tamas K Papp wrote: >> Doing that put him in my killfile. Quoting off-topic gibberish is not >> good manners either. > Interesting!!!
> What is a killfile? > Which news-reader do you use?
> I always wanted to be able to filter news but Iceape won't let me.
I am using Pan on Linux. Not perfect, but satisfactory.
I will never ask for permission to ask a question. Therfore "May I ask this question?" is my only unaskable question.
Thank you for the replies, though. Now I know - what a killfile is (where $Tim \notin killfile (\ddot\smile)$) - how to use it with Iceape - some alternative newsreaders I might try in future.
Thank you for answering. Norbert
Norbert_Paul wrote
> What is a killfile? > Which news-reader do you use?
