3 ms·
If you're seeking performance, stick to Common Lisp? https://renato.athaydes.com/posts/how-to-write-slow-rust-code.html https://renato.athaydes.com/posts/how-to
by vindarel 5y ago
If you're seeking performance, stick to Common Lisp? https://renato.athaydes.com/posts/how-to-write-slow-rust-code.html https://renato.athaydes.com/posts/how-to-write-slow-rust-cod... they sweat to great lengths to beat the non-optimized original Lisp program^^ (for ML-style type checking, check out the newly released Coalton library) TLDR; when talking Lisp, CL has still much to show.
- outworlder 5y agoCommon Lisp is wonderful. It was really ahead of its time - and, in some cases, still is. We would also have avoided many cycles of markup and configuration languages. That said, having a small Lisp or Scheme script in a Rust (or C) program can be helpful. Although I would honestly look into just adding Chicken, Gambit scheme or Guile at this point. Scheme and all Lisp likes are deceptively simple - you can implement an interpreter in a weekend. Then spend a lifetime trying to make it efficient.
- fouric 5y agoExactly. Python : Lua :: CL : Guile. Python and CL are much more capable general-purpose languages than Lua and Guile, but the latter are better for embedding into larger programs, partially because of their limited scope and features (which, among other things, simplify the amount of work that the embedding program has to do, as well as the FFI between the two).