From: Ray Drew

Subject: Re: [ACL] Help with performance comparison

Date: 1998-3-16 5:03

Jim

As an ACL/Win3.02 user I'd like to know if I can look forward to this
sort of performance with the forthcoming combined ACL5 for NT.

Ray Drew

From: Jim Veitch
To: Bruce Tobin
Cc: Allegro CL mailing list
Subject: Re: [ACL] Help with performance comparison
Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:25AM

Bruce,

Turns out I am wrong.  ACL 4.3.2 on NT is somewhat faster (and generates
tighter code) than ACL 4.3 on Linux.  The NT compiler is of later
vintage
and includes more optimizations.

Jim.

At 09:16 AM 3/15/98 -0500, Bruce Tobin wrote:
> I have written a small application the same way (as far as >possible) in Java, Dylan, Common Lisp, and Smalltalk. The application >is a simple version of the CN2 rule induction algorithm. The source >code for each version is available at: > > www.infinet.com/~btobin/perf.html > > The timings for each (5 trials): > Java (VJ++ 6.0 preview): > 1 9.304 seconds > 2 7.521 seconds > 3 7.121 seconds > 4 7.381 seconds > 5 7.832 seconds > > Lisp (ACL/Win3.02): > 1 11.997 seconds > 2 11.557 seconds > 3 11.397 seconds > 4 11.686 seconds > 5 11.476 seconds > > Dylan (Harlequin Dylan 1.0 beta 2): > 1 6.965591 seconds > 2 7.729048 seconds > 3 7.093233 seconds > 4 7.170502 seconds > 5 7.785091 seconds > > Smalltalk (Smalltalk MT 1.5 beta 3): 10.3 seconds. > 1 8.422 seconds > 2 8.492 seconds > 3 8.301 seconds > 4 8.492 seconds > 5 8.352 seconds > > Your advice on speeding up the Lisp code is solicited, but I think >my main problem is that I'm using ACL/Win3.02 instead of ACL 4.3 for >NT. I've run the code under 4.3 for Linux, and the times were >excellent: > >Lisp (ACL 4.3 for Linux): > >1 2.624 seconds >2 2.524 seconds >3 2.515 seconds >4 2.525 seconds >5 2.510 seconds > >Does anyone have 4.3 for Linux and 4.3 for NT running on the same >machine? How does performance differ from one to the other? > >Thanks, >Bruce T. > > > > > >