From: 55837-larry mayka(warren)549
Subject: CL-to-C efficiency ratio--published?
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 17:36:49 +0000
Message-ID: <LGM.93May20123649@tarazed.ATT.COM>

The question often comes up: How close can Common Lisp code come to C
code in efficiency?  The best example I've seen of this comparison is
a translation of the Dhrystone 2.0 benchmark into Common Lisp--in fact
two versions, one with type declarations and SAFETY set to 0, the
other without type declarations and SAFETY set at 3.  Have the results
of such a comparison been published anywhere?  (Publication apparently
lends an air of authority that my own tests do not have.)


        Lawrence G. Mayka
        AT&T Bell Laboratories
        ···@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.

--
        Lawrence G. Mayka
        AT&T Bell Laboratories
        ···@iexist.att.com

Standard disclaimer.

From: Kelly Murray
Subject: Re: CL-to-C efficiency ratio--published?
Date: Thu, 20 May 1993 19:30:42 +0000
Message-ID: <1tgm92INN4rb@no-names.nerdc.ufl.edu>

In article <·················@tarazed.ATT.COM>, ···@iexist.att.com (55837-larry mayka(warren)549) writes:
|> 
|> The question often comes up: How close can Common Lisp code come to C
|> code in efficiency?  The best example I've seen of this comparison is
|> a translation of the Dhrystone 2.0 benchmark into Common Lisp--in fact
|> two versions, one with type declarations and SAFETY set to 0, the
|> other without type declarations and SAFETY set at 3.  Have the results
|> of such a comparison been published anywhere?  (Publication apparently
|> lends an air of authority that my own tests do not have.)
|> 
|>         Lawrence G. Mayka

A published paper that has a few comparisons that are very favorable for
Lisp are in Richard Gabriel's "Worst is Better" paper.  It even had
some lisp programs running /faster/ than optimized C versions.  

I doubt these are truly representative cases (though I used to quote them :-).
Would you like to share your own results here?

-Kelly