Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:08:42 02/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2004 at 14:38:44, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 16, 2004 at 14:25:10, Tord Romstad wrote: > >>On February 16, 2004 at 14:03:11, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>Please re-read my statement. Look at the date. Then re-read yours. >>> >>>My statement was written in 1997. In general Lisp _was_ interpreted. >> >>No, it wasn't. Lisp has been a compiled language for *decades*. If you >>look at the ANSI Common Lisp standard (from 1991, if I recall correctly), >>you will see that the standard even *requires* a compiler. There is >>one implementation (CLISP) which compiles only to bytecode, all other >>major Lisp implementations have compiled to machine code since a very >>long time. >> >>>Of >>>course, so was BASIC. Yet there were basic compilers as well. My primary point >>>was speed. Lisp is slow. It always was slow. It always will be slow. >> >>It *isn't* necessarily slow. I have even provided one data point (from >>1999, just two years after your statement was written) to illustrate that >>Lisp in practice often enables you to write *faster* programs in *less* >>time compared to C/C++. > >Personally, I would take _any_ challenge to compete with a lisp program, when >the goal is performance. Granted, high-level languages may reduce the >_development_ time. I know nothing about lisp but remember that you have not unlimited developement time and it is possible that in limited time lisp is better for speed because you can also write code for solving the same problem in C with limited time but the code will be slower because you have not enough time to write the algorithm that you can write in lisp and you need to use inferior algorithm. It is only a possibility and I may be wrong because I know nothing about lisp. Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.