Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!think!ames!ucsd!orion.cf.uci.edu!oberon!nunki.usc.edu!castor.usc.edu!malczews
From: malczews@castor.usc.edu (Frank Malczewski)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: performance evaluation of lisp systems
Message-ID: <3022@nunki.usc.edu>
Date: 11 Mar 89 16:25:17 GMT
References: <2960@nunki.usc.edu> <86137@felix.UUCP> <645@arisia.Xerox.COM>
Sender: news@nunki.usc.edu
Reply-To: malczews@castor.usc.edu (Frank Malczewski)
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 21

In article <645@arisia.Xerox.COM> fischer@arisia.Xerox.COM (Ronald A. Fischer) writes:
>
>
>Be aware that all of the Lisps described in Gabriels' book have improved or
>changed performance.  His real contribution was to get a standard set of
>routines that could be used to performance test systems.  However, the book
>can't really be used to directly compare the implementations tested any longer.
>
>(ron)



You are not the only one to say something to this effect; I am interpreting
this to mean that the LISPs themselves have changed, and not the value of 
the benchmarks themselves.  Others have implied that the benchmarks themselves
are no longer quite as comprehensive, that newer sets may be more effective,
but perhaps proprietary, and thus less publicized.

Any further comments, as I await procurement of the Gabriel text?

  -- Frank Malczewski        (malczews@castor.usc.edu)