Author: Andrew Wagner
Date: 05:34:03 02/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2004 at 07:51:23, Tord Romstad wrote: >On February 16, 2004 at 16:26:35, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>On February 16, 2004 at 16:03:46, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>I am guessing that Lisp will have the approximate overhead of Java or VB.NET. >>>Hence, you will have a factor of 4 handicap. >> >>Unless you use a lisp-to-c compiler, of course. > >The point of Lisp-to-C compilers is portability, not performance. >Performance-wise, compiling to C does not offer any advantage compared to >compiling to assembly language. > >I don't see any technical reasons why Java should be inherently slower than >Lisp, but my experience is that it is. The reason is probably just a difference >in the quality of compilers. I am sure there are some really good optimizing >Java compilers out there, but I have never used one (nor a Java program compiled >with one). > >I have no comments about VB.NET, for the simple reason that I have never even >heard about it before. > >Tord Never heard of VB.NET??? That's the future of web developing! Maybe slow for chess (we'll know in a few weeks), but as far as web development, it's extremely powerful and convenient.
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.