4 ms·

Or you could just use java... The title says only fast languages are interesting, then rules out using Java because it's not lispy enough :/ Either you want s

Or you could just use java... The title says only fast languages are interesting, then rules out using Java because it's not lispy enough :/ Either you want speed, or you want your favorite syntax and high level stuff. You can't have both. FWIW My favorite syntax happens to be c/java/assembly type stuff. I'd hate to be one of the developers who hates those, must put you at a big disadvantage - as shown in the original post.

Maro 15y ago
Except if you're like 99% of engineers whose favorite syntax is C/C++-ish and are happily using C, C++, C#, Java or maybe Python.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
JoachimSchipper 15y ago
Why not? Apparently lush gets it right: C-like speed on numerics with a Lisp-ish syntax this guy likes. Yes, C-style stacks are going to beat Lisp-style closures; but there is no reason why a "fancy" language can't do fast matrix operations, which is 99.9% of numerical code anyway. Even Scheme has (rather un-Lisp-ish) vectors in addition to the standard linked lists.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- nemoniac 15y ago
  > C-style stacks are going to beat Lisp-style closures It has been a long time since the "λ the ultimate..." series of papers gave the lie to this myth.
rbanffy 15y ago
I once made the joke that a Java web app usually catches up with a Django one in about six months. The Java app is faster, but, the Django one stars serving users three months before the Java enters live beta. And if you are serious about number crushing, my friends tell me you should use FORTRAN, not Java.
- eric_t 15y ago
  Here's the summation problem in Fortran, quite succinct, IMO: real, dimension(30000000) :: a call random_number(a) print *, sum(a) That's 30 million doubles, takes 0.04s on my machine.
  - kaffiene 15y ago
    Which is how long the Java solution took on my machine. Which can't be right, because Java is wrong whatever the question is.
- kaffiene 15y ago
  If you write a Java app using the old Java2EE approach, perhaps. If you write one using Play or something equally agile, not so much.

Maro 15y ago

Except if you're like 99% of engineers whose favorite syntax is C/C++-ish and are happily using C, C++, C#, Java or maybe Python.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

JoachimSchipper 15y ago

Why not? Apparently lush gets it right: C-like speed on numerics with a Lisp-ish syntax this guy likes. Yes, C-style stacks are going to beat Lisp-style closures; but there is no reason why a "fancy" language can't do fast matrix operations, which is 99.9% of numerical code anyway. Even Scheme has (rather un-Lisp-ish) vectors in addition to the standard linked lists.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
nemoniac 15y ago
> C-style stacks are going to beat Lisp-style closures It has been a long time since the "λ the ultimate..." series of papers gave the lie to this myth.

rbanffy 15y ago

I once made the joke that a Java web app usually catches up with a Django one in about six months. The Java app is faster, but, the Django one stars serving users three months before the Java enters live beta. And if you are serious about number crushing, my friends tell me you should use FORTRAN, not Java.

eric_t 15y ago
Here's the summation problem in Fortran, quite succinct, IMO: real, dimension(30000000) :: a call random_number(a) print *, sum(a) That's 30 million doubles, takes 0.04s on my machine.
- kaffiene 15y ago
  Which is how long the Java solution took on my machine. Which can't be right, because Java is wrong whatever the question is.
kaffiene 15y ago
If you write a Java app using the old Java2EE approach, perhaps. If you write one using Play or something equally agile, not so much.