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!godot!harvard!macrakis
From: macrakis@harvard.ARPA (Stavros Macrakis)
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.lang.lisp,net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Efficiency of numerical Lisp code (details)
Message-ID: <460@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 11-Mar-85 21:11:04 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.460
Posted: Mon Mar 11 21:11:04 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 12:49:48 EST
References: <417@ssc-vax.UUCP> <676@topaz.ARPA> <6982@watdaisy.UUCP>
Organization: Aiken Comp. Lab., Harvard
Xref: watmath net.ai:2607 net.lang.lisp:376 net.lang.ada:222
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Out of an excess of curiosity, I went back and checked DEC Fortran vs.
Maclisp code quality on the inner product problem: DEC Fortran turns out
to produce excellent code, and Maclisp gets nowhere near the performance
it could get under its runtime model.  DEC Fortran has 7 memory
reference loop; Maclisp (with full declarations), a 23 mem ref loop.  Of
course, this proves nothing about Lisp per se, just the Maclisp compiler
of 3/85.