3 ms·
I saw this a month or two ago and submitted a pull request that I still need to fix up to have it accepted. My original intention was to benchmark a bit agains
by jlarocco 10y ago
I saw this a month or two ago and submitted a pull request that I still need to fix up to have it accepted. My original intention was to benchmark a bit against SBCL, but I got sidetracked with the pull request, then lost time and then forgot about it. I need to get back to it and see about getting it submitted.
Anyway, it sounds neat, but even after playing with it a bit, I'm not sure how necessary it is.
SBCL (and supposedly the commercial Common Lisps) are pretty fast nowadays. Not C fast, but I can usually get about 1/2 - 1/3 C speed and 4-8x faster than Python without doing anything special.
For example, I made an animation app (https://github.com/jl2/qt-fft-viz https://github.com/jl2/qt-fft-viz) that reads an MP3 and generates an animation while it plays back, and I get 90+ fps. It's not a big graphics/CPU intense video game, but it's doing a lot of FFT calculations and some basic graphics.
So, not to diminish the Carp project, but I think regular old Common Lisp is faster than most people think, is better supported, has more libraries, and works on more platforms and operating systems.
- larsbrinkhoff 10y agoI believe one major motivation behind Carp is the lack garbage collection. Or rather, avoiding GC pauses. So, maybe you could benchmark Carp vs SBCL in that area?