6 ms·
23 years old, add the date please
by jurgenaut23 3y ago
23 years old, add the date please
- bradrn 3y ago(1999), that is.
- Narishma 3y agoI think it's older than that going by this quote from the first chapter. > The Lisp development systems on both my Mac and my PC run comfortably in anywhere from 4 to 8 megabytes of RAM. Less in a pinch. The integrated C++ development environments take anywhere from 12 to 20 megabytes. Both have comparable tools and facilities.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lukego 3y agoProbably pretty up-to-date, then :)
- theshrike79 3y agoToo bad, I was actually excited to see what kind of problem would benefit from Lisp in the 2020s
- pjmlp 3y agoAnyone relying on a dynamic language with state of the art compilers instead of rewriting code in C and Fortran for usable performance.
- moonchild 3y agoExtant lisp compilers are not 'state of the art'; that they are is a bad meme. SBCL certainly attains very usable performance, though.
- pjmlp 3y agoThey certainly are, when compared with many alternatives.
- moonchild 3y agoWhich alternatives? Sbcl: - Requires manual type annotations to achieve remotely reasonable performance - Does no interesting optimisations around method dispatch - Chokes on code which reassigns variables - Doesn't model memory (sroa, store forwarding, alias analysis, concurrency...) - Doesn't do code motion - Has a decent, but not particularly good gc Hotspot hits on all of these points. It's true that if you hand-hold the compiler, you can get fairly reasonable machine code out of it, same as you can do with some c compilers these days. But it's 80s technology and it shows.
- bo-tato 3y agoIt seems with the massive amounts of money and full time engineers JVM has to be far more advanced technically, but does it actually make a difference? I don't know anything about compilers I just know LuaJIT is faster than any dynamic language on the JVM, SBCL is much faster than lisp on the JVM, chez scheme is much faster then scheme on the JVM, pypy is faster than jython. For statically-typed GC languages that should be comparable to Java, Go and Ocaml are famous for having very simple and fast compilers (fast as in they compile quickly without doing much optimization) and they don't perform any worse than Java.
- lispm 3y agoDo you have an idea/opinion on Chez Scheme and its compiler?
- moonchild 3y agoI haven't used it. From what I hear, it generates ok code, but compromises on codegen quality for the sake of simplicity.
- sillymath 3y ago
- mm007emko 3y agoI use SBCL for research in nature-inspired algorithms. Not only you can use the same fast linear algebra libraries (BLAS, Lapack) as for instance NumPy does, recently they added support for SIMD instructions so you no longer have to call C or ASM code for vector (and matrix) computations if you have only a couple of small matrices and not on the "hot path" of your program. Most of the Common Lisp implementations used nowadays produce native code (or C or LLVM code which will be natively compiled). So you don't have to rewrite anything. Nowadays ML stuff is usually about matrix multiplications in its core so Python with NumPy (or a Cuda library) also delivers good enough performance. The native code is already there, just call it. You don't have to write it.
- pjmlp 3y agoYeah, on a very niche use case.