16 Feb
2018
16 Feb
'18
2:55 a.m.
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 09:51:21PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote:
On 2018-02-15 9:41 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
I'm fine with your claim but I'd like to see a pile of C code that was
rewritten in lisp and it is faster. I'm 99.9% sure that's not a thing.
Lisp is fantastic for programmers who know how to use it, which is why
so many people are lisp fanatics. But performant it is not. Feel free
to show me how I'm wrong, I love being wrong, that's where I learn.
--lm
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 09:38:02PM -0500, Dan
Cross wrote:
You can stop at "I don't know all the details". That meme about
performance is not actually true, but it's popular among people who
don't know Lisp technically or use it professionally.
There are a number of mature Common Lisp compilers and some of them
boast outstanding performance. On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 8:56 PM, Lawrence Stewart
<stewart(a)serissa.com>
wrote:
Which is sort of my point. I don't know all the details but lisp and
performance is not a thing.
ITA???s airline flight booking system, that was
used by Orbitz and others
was pretty much entirely written in Common LISP, and it was certainly both
large and commercially successful. Orbitz was bought by Google for $700
million. I don???t know how much of the LISP survived sustained attention by
Google.
Google bought ITA, not Orbitz. Most of the logic in QPX is still in Common
Lisp, but it's not what you'd call "idiomatic" CL code. If one reads
a
bunch of Paul Graham and Peter Norvig books and then gets onto QPX with the
expectation of that sort of elegance, you end up pretty unhappy pretty
quick. They do a lot of things very differently to squeeze as much
performance as they can out of what has, historically speaking, been a
fairly mediocre compiler.