Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Message from discussion Waving the lambda flag again (was: Constants and DEFCONSTANT)
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
 
Erik Naggum  
View profile  
 More options Apr 1 1999, 3:00 am
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
From: Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.no>
Date: 1999/04/01
Subject: Re: Waving the lambda flag again (was: Constants and DEFCONSTANT)
* chu...@best.com (Chuck Fry)
| Modern Common Lisp compilers allow me to tune the critical parts of my
| code to within a few percent of C code, but without the pain of using a
| fragile, brittle quasi-portable assembly language.

  just for the heck of it: I have tuned a _very_ CPU-heavy function I wrote
  in Common Lisp over a year ago so it went from the unsatisfactory 623 µs
  per call to the very pleasant 4.7 µs per call.

  the strictly equivalent C function that people are entirely _satisfied_
  with, performance-wise, takes 92 µs per call.  very frequently, I find
  that Common Lisp allows me to experiment with algorithms so much faster
  than I can in C and the like, so I can change methodology and approach as
  fast as they can do another optimization attempt.  this means that a good
  Common Lisp programmer can find the optimal algorithm _and_ the optimal
  implementation in less time than the C programmer can find the optimal
  implementation.

  the C mind-set is that C is fast.  this is even less true than their idea
  that CL is slow.  writing really fast C code is _incredibly_ hard, and
  you might as well write it in assembly after you have seen what the
  compiler is doing to the overall code.  I have squeezed the last drop of
  blood out of many a CPU in my time, but never has it been easier to do it
  than with Allegro CL with its instruction-level profiler, hackable LAP
  code (thanks, Duane!), and code transformation with compiler macros (a
  standard CL facility).  this stuff just isn't available to C programmers.

  if you can't outperform C in CL, you're too good at C.

#:Erik


 
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.