From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!sasaki From: sasaki@harvard.ARPA (Marty Sasaki) Newsgroups: net.ai,net.lang.lisp,net.lang.ada Subject: Efficiency of LISP Message-ID: <417@harvard.ARPA> Date: Sat, 2-Mar-85 13:35:17 EST Article-I.D.: harvard.417 Posted: Sat Mar 2 13:35:17 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 06:53:13 EST References: <417@ssc-vax.UUCP> <676@topaz.ARPA> <6982@watdaisy.UUCP> <3223@utah-cs.UUCP> <7016@watdaisy.UUCP> <306@talcott.UUCP> Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard Xref: watmath net.ai:2574 net.lang.lisp:352 net.lang.ada:204 List-Id: There was an informal experiment done in the early-mid seventies at MIT that compared MACLISP with other programming languages. Basically a translator was written to translate (say) FORTRAN into MACLISP. Both versions were compiled, and the programs were run and the results compared. The translators were simple and did no real optimizing of the code, everything was up to the lisp compiler. In every case the lisp versions ran faster and took up less memory. The experiment was done on either a KA-10 or a KL-10. I remember being amazed at the FORTRAN results. The programs being used were purely computational ones, things like matrix handling and iterative modeling simulations. I don't remember much more. Could any of the principles shed further light? -- Marty Sasaki Havard University Science Center sasaki@harvard.{arpa,uucp} 617-495-1270