5 ms·

The algorithms were the same. But... The C code probably ran 100 times faster than Lisp before I optimised it.

• asciilifeform 17y ago
  Which Lisp?
  • zandorg 17y ago
    (compiled) Clisp.
    • mahmud 17y ago
      > (compiled) Clisp. Clisp is only byte-compiled :-) So no, no way in bloody hell you beat CMUCL/SBCL by 1000 times.
      • zandorg 17y ago
        No need to be hostile, I was just detailing my own experience, relevant to the article.
        • mahmud 17y ago
          I wouldn't have been hostile if you attacked my family and loved ones. My development environment OTOH ..
          • omouse 17y ago
            What if your development environment is Emacs and GNU stuff is your family?? :S
        • bretthoerner 17y ago
          I don't think it's hostile to point out that Clisp is only interpreted. It points out a flaw in your "C is faster" argument.
        • Zak 17y ago
          And it wasn't a totally unreasonable contribution, but it's important to keep in mind that if you compared CINT to SBCL, you'd probably conclude that Lisp is hundreds of times faster than C. Here's such a comparison: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=cint&lang2=sbcl&box=1 http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all...
• simonb 17y ago
  I take it you didn't bother with things such as optimization and type declaration in lisp. Also great job on comparing what is essentially an interpreter to a compiler. edit: http://www.cliki.net/Performance%20Benchmarks http://www.cliki.net/Performance%20Benchmarks