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 topaz.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!hedrick From: hedrick@topaz.ARPA (Chuck Hedrick) Newsgroups: net.ai,net.lang.lisp,net.lang.ada Subject: Re: Efficiency of numerical Lisp code (details) Message-ID: <955@topaz.ARPA> Date: Wed, 13-Mar-85 02:05:21 EST Article-I.D.: topaz.955 Posted: Wed Mar 13 02:05:21 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 14-Mar-85 12:19:52 EST References: <417@ssc-vax.UUCP> <676@topaz.ARPA> <6982@watdaisy.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Xref: watmath net.ai:2608 net.lang.lisp:378 net.lang.ada:223 List-Id: > Out of an excess of curiosity, I went back and checked DEC Fortran vs. > Maclisp code quality I conjecture that the original test may have been against the old DEC Fortran compiler, known as F40. If so, your new test was against a different Fortran compiler. Hence different results would not be surprising. Does anybody who was involved in the tests know what Fortran compiler was involved? This particular piece of folklore (that Maclisp generates as good code as Fortran) is more widely quoted than you might think. If it isn't true, or if the Fortran compiler is one that would now be viewed as substandard, I would very much like to know.