4 ms·
The performance gap between C++ and GC languages like Ocaml and Common Lisp is much smaller than 10x. Here's one example where Common Lisp yielded literally the
by mepian 7y ago
The performance gap between C++ and GC languages like Ocaml and Common Lisp is much smaller than 10x. Here's one example where Common Lisp yielded literally the same performance as C++: https://m00natic.github.io/lisp/manual-jit.html#orgd043a43 https://m00natic.github.io/lisp/manual-jit.html#orgd043a43
- JoeAltmaier 7y agoThere's more than raw execution speed. There's footprint, which affects how soon you have to scale (hint: 100X sooner with GC/interpreted systems). There's latency which can be highly irregular in GC systems and can result in very confusing behavior/bugs. Modern systems can remove lots of complexity and enable fast prototyping, which we are all aware of. But it comes with a cost, and that cost (e.g. having to deal with scaling much, much sooner) hits at a sensitive time in startup growth.
- typon 7y agoThe final code in the "Squeezing performance 2" section looks scary. I'll admit I'm not an expert in CL and have only written Clojure, but that does not look like idiomatic CL. A good comparison would be idiomatic C++ vs. idiomatic CL. If this is idiomatic CL, then i'm really surprised at the performance.