Wolfram and Lisp Recollections

#1

Post by asciilifeform » Sun, May 17, 2009, 3:13 PM UTC

Wolfram and Lisp Recollections
groups.google.com

Re: Wolfram and Lisp Recollections

#2

Post by zandorg » Sun, May 17, 2009, 5:54 PM UTC

I also have written C programs which (with some basic optimisations) are 1000 (yes) times faster than the Lisp equivalent.

Initially prototyped in Lisp, and the code ported over line-for-line to C.

Re: Wolfram and Lisp Recollections

#3

Post by 83457 » Sun, May 17, 2009, 6:26 PM UTC

zandorg wrote: post #2

I also have written C programs which (with some basic optimisations) are 1000 (yes) times faster than the Lisp equivalent. Initially prototyped in Lisp, and the code ported over line-for-line to C.

Are you comparing the speed of optimized code to unoptimized code?

Re: Wolfram and Lisp Recollections

#4

Post by zandorg » Sun, May 17, 2009, 6:29 PM UTC

83457 wrote: post #3

zandorg wrote: post #2

I also have written C programs which (with some basic optimisations) are 1000 (yes) times faster than the Lisp equivalent. Initially prototyped in Lisp, and the code ported over line-for-line to C.

Are you comparing the speed of optimized code to unoptimized code?

The algorithms were the same.

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

Re: Wolfram and Lisp Recollections

#5

Post by asciilifeform » Sun, May 17, 2009, 6:37 PM UTC

zandorg wrote: post #4

83457 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you comparing the speed of optimized code to unoptimized code?

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

Which Lisp?

Re: Wolfram and Lisp Recollections

#6

Post by zandorg » Sun, May 17, 2009, 6:45 PM UTC

asciilifeform wrote: post #5

zandorg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Which Lisp?

(compiled) Clisp.

Re: Wolfram and Lisp Recollections

#7

Post by simonb » Sun, May 17, 2009, 6:59 PM UTC

zandorg wrote: post #4

83457 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you comparing the speed of optimized code to unoptimized code?

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

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

Re: Wolfram and Lisp Recollections

#8

Post by mahmud » Sun, May 17, 2009, 6:59 PM UTC

zandorg wrote: post #6

asciilifeform wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which Lisp?

(compiled) Clisp.

> (compiled) Clisp.

Clisp is only byte-compiled :-) So no, no way in bloody hell you beat CMUCL/SBCL by 1000 times.

Re: Wolfram and Lisp Recollections

#9

Post by zandorg » Sun, May 17, 2009, 7:14 PM UTC

mahmud wrote: post #8

zandorg wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(compiled) Clisp.

> (compiled) Clisp. Clisp is only byte-compiled :-) So no, no way in bloody hell you beat CMUCL/SBCL by 1000 times.

No need to be hostile, I was just detailing my own experience, relevant to the article.

Re: Wolfram and Lisp Recollections

#10

Post by bawr » Sun, May 17, 2009, 7:42 PM UTC

zandorg wrote: post #2

I also have written C programs which (with some basic optimisations) are 1000 (yes) times faster than the Lisp equivalent. Initially prototyped in Lisp, and the code ported over line-for-line to C.

I should know better, but I'll bite as well - were those Lisp programs, by chance, written as quick prototypes without any optimizations or by people who didn't really grok Lisp? Saying that "algorithms were the same" isn't terribly informative - after all, using the worn out factorial example, both the tail-optimized and stack-using versions of it would still use the same algorithm.