The Transmeta thread (which is great stuff, by the way) has stimulated
some discussion of the classic Common Lisp vs. C/C++ comparison. I
submit to this forum that C/C++ is no longer Common Lisp's primary
"competitor", and that comparisons of performance vs. C++ are not
terribly relevant any more.
The all-knowing and infallible forces of the Market (sic) are inexoribly
moving the world towards Java(TM). I submit that in this day and age,
it's Java(TM) that we should be comparing Common Lisp performance to.
Why are programmers abandoning C/C++ in droves to move to Java? Why has
the trade press all but forgotten about C/C++? I'll tell you why:
Most programmers are significantly more productive in Java(TM) than in
*any* other programming language -- that they've seriously used before.
A C++ programmer who tries Java never wants to go back.
Would anyone else be interested in seeing some of the "classic" C/C++
vs. Common Lisp benchmark results reformulated as Java(TM) vs.
Common Lisp? I know I would! I wish I had the time to spend...
On a _completely_unrelated_ note: ;-)
Erik recently uttered (well, metaphorically) a quote which I immediately
added to my list of timeless Usenet classics:
please realize that the Common Lisp community is more than 40 years old.
collectively, the community has already been where every clueless newbie
will be going for the next three years. -- #:Erik (Erik Naggum)
I apologize to Erik in advance for quoting this out of context -- but I
just couldn't help myself.
--
Become a Venture Technologist... <http://www.everest.com/careers/>
"Kaelin Colclasure" <······@everest.com> writes:
> Would anyone else be interested in seeing some of the "classic"
> C/C++ vs. Common Lisp benchmark results reformulated as Java(TM) vs.
> Common Lisp? I know I would! I wish I had the time to spend...
Have you read Erann Gat's 'Lisp as an Alternative to Java'?
http://www-aig.jpl.nasa.gov/public/home/gat/lisp-study.html
Chris.