"ted sandler" <··········@rcn.com> writes:
> How much faster is CMUCL than SBCL?
> (or more poigniantly, how much /slower/ is SBCL than CMUCL?)
This will depend on your application, even between such
closely-related dialects as CMUCL and SBCL.
For "traditional" code (for instance, the Gabriel benchmarks), there's
essentially no difference in speed (on my most recent run, SBCL varies
between about 5% faster and about 20% slower in execution speed).
SBCL's array performance in the 0.7.5 release (and before) is
noticeably worse than CMUCL's as of 18d; the good news is that some
fairly intensive work has been done on this area for SBCL (some of
which is transferrable to CMUCL) so the 0.7.6 release should be much
more acceptable from that point of view. SBCL is noticeably slower
than CMUCL at compilation (the act of compilation, that is) -- compile
times are generally a factor of four longer, for a number of reasons
(though mostly because compilation speed hasn't been very high on the
maintainers' list of priorities).
I hope that the impression I'm giving is twofold: firstly, that your
question cannot be answered by a simple number; and secondly, that
even if it were answerable in that fashion, you might have to ask
again in a month's time. My advice would be to have both around for
developing (as well as other implementations), and to make a choice
for deployment as and when that moment arises.
Cheers,
Christophe
--
Jesus College, Cambridge, CB5 8BL +44 1223 510 299
http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ (defun pling-dollar
(str schar arg) (first (last +))) (make-dispatch-macro-character #\! t)
(set-dispatch-macro-character #\! #\$ #'pling-dollar)
> I hope that the impression I'm giving is twofold: firstly, that your
> question cannot be answered by a simple number; and secondly, that
> even if it were answerable in that fashion, you might have to ask
> again in a month's time.
Though you didn't provide a simple number, you gave me the anwers I needed.
Thanks,
ted
"Christophe Rhodes" <·····@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
···················@lambda.jcn.srcf.net...
> "ted sandler" <··········@rcn.com> writes:
>
> > How much faster is CMUCL than SBCL?
> > (or more poigniantly, how much /slower/ is SBCL than CMUCL?)
>
> This will depend on your application, even between such
> closely-related dialects as CMUCL and SBCL.
>
> For "traditional" code (for instance, the Gabriel benchmarks), there's
> essentially no difference in speed (on my most recent run, SBCL varies
> between about 5% faster and about 20% slower in execution speed).
> SBCL's array performance in the 0.7.5 release (and before) is
> noticeably worse than CMUCL's as of 18d; the good news is that some
> fairly intensive work has been done on this area for SBCL (some of
> which is transferrable to CMUCL) so the 0.7.6 release should be much
> more acceptable from that point of view. SBCL is noticeably slower
> than CMUCL at compilation (the act of compilation, that is) -- compile
> times are generally a factor of four longer, for a number of reasons
> (though mostly because compilation speed hasn't been very high on the
> maintainers' list of priorities).
>
> I hope that the impression I'm giving is twofold: firstly, that your
> question cannot be answered by a simple number; and secondly, that
> even if it were answerable in that fashion, you might have to ask
> again in a month's time. My advice would be to have both around for
> developing (as well as other implementations), and to make a choice
> for deployment as and when that moment arises.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christophe
> --
> Jesus College, Cambridge, CB5 8BL +44 1223 510
299
> http://www-jcsu.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~csr21/ (defun
pling-dollar
> (str schar arg) (first (last +))) (make-dispatch-macro-character #\! t)
> (set-dispatch-macro-character #\! #\$ #'pling-dollar)