Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 04:25:35 02/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
>>Perhaps that says more about your C programming than your Lisp programming. > >I've already conceded that point. If you read my last post again, you >will see that I explicitly state that I am a much better Lisp programmer >than C programmer. You are one of those who have detailed knowledge and >lots of experience with low-level programming and computer hardware, >and you are therefore able to squeeze out more performance from a C or >assembly language program than I would ever manage. Without such >knowledge (which, I think, most of us do not posess), C simply doesn't >offer any significant performance advantage. I think that depends on exactly how high-level Lisp is. I'd hate to use Lisp for writing an engine if e.g. Lisp didn't have bitwise operators. :) >There is noone who forces you to use the same language for the whole program, >of course. Performance-critical parts of a Lisp program could be rewritten >in C or assembly language. Mixing Lisp and assembly language tends to be >much easier and more comfortable than mixing C and assembly language, because >of the power of Lisp macros. I don't really follow you here, you seem to be saying that Lisp is good because you don't have to use it(!) but you can replace it with assembly? It seems one can't really argue in favor using a high-level language solely because it is high-level, and then afterwards ask people to use inlined assembly for speed when the high-levelness doesn't cut it. Somehow this seems contradictory to me. -S. >Tord
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.