From: Joerg Hoehle
Subject: Re: CL (CLISP vs CMUCL) performance on Linux
Date:
Message-ID: <6aobc1$ud0@omega.gmd.de>
Sam Steingold (···@usa.net) wrote:
[...]
: timed the execution. The code basically does lots of number crunching,
: plus a moderate amount of consing while reading initial data (lists of
[...]
: Thus, as far as ***my code*** is concerned, CLISP is faster (unless
: someone would tell me how to fix GC in CMU CL to be fast :-)
: Comments?
Not surprising to me. I had similar experience recently with lots of
bignum number crunching, and attributed the results to CLISP's better
number algorithms. (you know, ma2s2.*mathematik*.uni-... :-)
(and my code was compiled :-)
I however, generally found CLISP's and CMUCL's consed garbage values
to be similar, unlike your results, for my project at least.
Regards,
Jo"rg Ho"hle.
············@gmd.de http://zeus.gmd.de/~hoehle/amiga-clisp.html