4 ms·
Clojure compiles to JVM bytecode, so it should run much much faster than an interpreted picolisp. Clojure works on Windows too, while Picolisp needs Cygwin I th
by FractalLP 8y ago
Clojure compiles to JVM bytecode, so it should run much much faster than an interpreted picolisp. Clojure works on Windows too, while Picolisp needs Cygwin I think. Picolisp is really simple from a language point of view. It has a small group of core users who think very differently about software. There aren't many picolisp libraries, but you can hook into C & Java libraries when needed. It has an integrated prolog like DB. Clojure runs Walmart during black Friday online sales...I would not recommend that with picolisp.
- jacobush 8y ago"Erzats" PicoLisp runs anywhere Java runs, that was it's original reason for existance - to be used in bootstrapping the compilation of PicoLisp, IIRC. However, nowadays, I think Erzats PicoLisp, AKA the Java version of PicoLisp, gots too little love. It's an interesting way of accessing the JVM, just like Groovy or Clojure. Also, I don't have benchmarks, but PicoLisp is pretty damn fast owing to minimal datastructures and I would expect that to spill over into the Java implementation. http://picolisp.com/wiki/?NeedForSpeed http://picolisp.com/wiki/?NeedForSpeed http://picolisp.com/wiki/?ErsatzReflection http://picolisp.com/wiki/?ErsatzReflection
- FractalLP 8y agoAlexander has a "Need for Speed" article where he shows it's in the neighborhood of Clisp, but Clisp isn't really all that fast. Comparing to SBCL would be more useful as it is very fast.