Talk:CMU Common Lisp
Appearance
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
"there is no interpreter"?
[edit]I think whoever wrote this was thinking of SBCL. CMUCL compiles to interpreted bytecode as well as native code; SBCL doesn't have bytecode. I don't think the CMUCL bytecode is used for much(I don't have the manual handy, and the site is down.), but it does exist.
Aha, here's the part I was looking for:Byte Coded Compilation--BlakeStone 01:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Numerical performance
[edit]- And it's not just non-assignment based functional languages where you can see supposedly less-efficient high level languages crushing the performance of C/C++. CMU CommonLisp can beat C/C++ on numeric code. There was a paper a few years back documenting it: using a Sun SPARC workstation, if you use the optional type declarations, and write scientific/numeric code in Lisp, using vectors (Lisp arrays) and assignments to implement exactly the same algorithm as C, the CMU CommonLisp code will perform better than C code generated by either the Solaris C compiler or GCC with maximum optimization.[1]
Can't seem to find the paper he references; all the CMUCL benchmarks I've dug up were inter-Lisp implementation benchmarks.
Categories:
- Start-Class Computing articles
- Low-importance Computing articles
- Start-Class software articles
- Low-importance software articles
- Start-Class software articles of Low-importance
- All Software articles
- Start-Class Free and open-source software articles
- Low-importance Free and open-source software articles
- Start-Class Free and open-source software articles of Low-importance
- All Free and open-source software articles
- All Computing articles