Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!FRSAC11.BITNET!NETWORK
From: NETWORK@FRSAC11.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Subject: Speed
Message-ID: <8712181825.AA00367@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 18 Dec 87 19:06:36 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 41

+Date: Fri, 18 Dec 87 12:36:10 est
+From: gjs@ZOHAR.AI.MIT.EDU (Gerald Jay Sussman)
+To: NETWORK%FRSAC11.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
+n-Reply-To: NETWORK%FRSAC11.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU's message of Fri, 18 Dec 87
+ 15:47:25 GMT <8712181549.AA15413@zohar>
+Subject: Byte code speed.
+
+great... TI PC Scheme 3.0 is still faster!
+But on big problems (~100 pages of code) CScheme beats the
+PC scheme by a large amount.

Why on larger code ? (memory management ?)

As far as I have observed PC Scheme GC somewhat less than CSCheme,
From old popular wisdom (here, in France) it is said that the speed
of an interpreter is strongly related to the use of "CONS" for the
own use of the interpreter itself, and I have the feeling that
PC Scheme "conses" less than CScheme too. (I am surely wrong, it
is just a feeling. But the popular wisdom seems solid.)

(CScheme is somewhat more clever than some other Lisp I have on
my system, but around twice as slow, I am strongly thinking that
the difference between then is the fact that the other interpreter
does not "cons" at all)

Comments ?

Again my question: where can I find documents related to the
byte coding used in the popular Scheme (PC, Mac, C) ?

Extended question: I think that Scheme could be implemented with
incredible efficiency on modern Forth 32 bit chips, with stack
cache. Am I wrong ?

Regards,

Jean-Pierre H. Dumas

network@frsac11 (bitnet)
network%frsac11.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu (arpanet)
dumas@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (arpanet)