Xref: utzoo comp.ai:9027 comp.robotics:790 comp.lang.lisp:4767
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!chx400!sicsun!disuns2!/!baechler
From: baechler@disuns2.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.robotics,comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: What do users think of compiled Lisp performance on SPARCs?
Message-ID: <1991Apr12.081915@disuns2.epfl.ch>
Date: 12 Apr 91 06:19:15 GMT
References: <1991Apr11.133331.19775@unhd.unh.edu>
Sender: news@disuns2.epfl.ch
Reply-To: baechler@disuns2.epfl.ch (Emmanuel Baechler)
Followup-To: comp.ai
Organization: Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
Lines: 26

In article <1991Apr11.133331.19775@unhd.unh.edu>, marek@msel.unh.edu
(Marek W Lugowski) writes:
> 
> Has it been the people's (users') experience that the current state
> of
> the art in Lisp (perhaps specifically Allegro's Presto system, but
> not
> only) is such that the compiled code runs as fast and in as small a
> space as C++ or C?
> 

I didn't do benchmarks, but people using Allegro Common Lisp in our lab
find its speed perfectly adequate (its weakness lies on its developpment
environnment (compared with a lisp machine)). However, they are not doing
real time systems. Anyway, even if it would be a little bit slower than
C, I find much more comfortable to use Common Lisp than a structured
assembly language.

E. Baechler
AI Lab.
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
MA - Ecublens
1015 Lausanne	Swizterland
baechler@liasun4.epfl.ch

Standard disclaimer