Gmail Calendar Documents Reader Web more »
Recently Visited Groups | Help | Sign in
Google Groups Home
Message from discussion a potential lisp convert, and interpreting the shootout
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Juho Snellman  
View profile  
 More options Sep 29 2006, 10:26 pm
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: Juho Snellman <jsn...@iki.fi>
Date: 30 Sep 2006 02:26:51 GMT
Local: Fri, Sep 29 2006 10:26 pm
Subject: Re: a potential lisp convert, and interpreting the shootout

Henry Bigelow <hrbige...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi paul,
>   i took a look at SPEC--it seems definitive, indeed, but for comparing
> computer systems, not languages.  is that right?  would you be able to
> point me in a direction to compare languages?  i have a hunch that
> there is something very wrong with the lisp benchmark which is about
> 100 times more memory/ or slower than a c program, but it'd be very
> difficult for me to rewrite it more efficiently.

> it's possible that for various reasons, people don't care enough about
> the shootout

As far as I can tell, the lifecycle of a shootout benchmark goes like
this:

  1. A new benchmark is added, nobody cares
  2. A newbie with 2 hours of Lisp experience notices that there's
     no implementation for the benchmark. He thinks that a crappy
     implementation is better than no implementation, and proceeds
     to write something embarrasingly slow and hideously ugly.
  3. People who mistakenly think that the Shootout has any validity
     bitch and moan about Lisp being slow on that benchmark.
  4. Someone who knows how to optimize Lisp code gets tired of the
     moaning, and either rewrites the whole program (if it was
     sufficiently hideous) or makes a few obvious but critical
     improvements (if the program was salvageable). A huge speedup
     results, the people from step 3 start whining about something else.
  5. The requirements for the benchmark are modified, and the optimized
     Lisp implementation gets deleted. There's no sign of it ever
     having existed.
  6. Return to step 2

The fannkuch benchmark is currently at step 3, having been at step 5
at least once. The old fannkuch program was about 10 times faster than
what is currently up on the shootout site.

--
Juho Snellman


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2009 Google