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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,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!macrakis
From: macrakis@harvard.ARPA (Stavros Macrakis)
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.lang.lisp,net.lang.ada
Subject: Speed of Lisp numerical code
Message-ID: <495@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 12:35:11 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.495
Posted: Tue Mar 19 12:35:11 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 21-Mar-85 02:32:12 EST
References: <253@bu-cs.UUCP> <320@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> <3829@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: Aiken Comp. Lab., Harvard
Xref: watmath net.ai:2646 net.lang.lisp:406 net.lang.ada:245
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

WHEREAS it has become increasingly obvious that those discussing this
  issue on this list are unwilling to read each others' contributions
  carefully; and in particular
WHEREAS some persist in confusing a language design with its existing
  implementations and with its potential implementations; and 
WHEREAS Lisp advocates especially (on this list; on others, it's C or
  Pascal or Ada or APL advocates) fail to see weak points in their own
  systems and strong points in others'; and
WHEREAS it is likely that all those not participating in the discussion
  and most of those who are, are tired of it;

NOW THEREFORE, I hereby withdraw from the discussion of numerical
  efficiency in Lisp and
DO DECLINE to rebut comments on my earlier contributions while
  continuing to maintain their soundness.

NONETHELESS I am willing to receive and will study any substantive
  contributions to this question, such as documented benchmarks.