From ... From: Erik Naggum Subject: Re: Theory #51 (superior(?) programming languages) Date: 1997/01/26 Message-ID: <3063274536533203@naggum.no>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 212326038 references: <5c5c65$9ed@news-rocq.inria.fr> <32E6CA6E.45B5@netright.com> <3063010159007887@naggum.no> <32E7D7C3.60ED@netright.com> <3063055314263603@naggum.no> <32E8FEC9.1F11@netright.com> <3063147946409477@naggum.no> <8gd8uuxpo2.fsf@galapagos.cse.psu.edu> <3063183095872312@naggum.no> <8gafpxyaoc.fsf@galapagos.cse.psu.edu> <3063227791126192@naggum.no> <8gafpx6ogz.fsf@roke.cse.psu.edu> mail-copies-to: never organization: Naggum Software; +47 2295 0313; http://www.naggum.no newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme * Scott Schwartz | My point is valid: you want to treat lisp like a shell, but then ignore | the cost of doing so when the overhead is in question. In contrast, the | time you gave for the a.out version includes the cost of dynamically | loading all the shared libraries. your "point" is not only invalid, it is completely ridiculous. I measured 1 million calls to these functions, and got the timings I did, and don't even try to believe I fork'ed and exec'ed a million times. I wanted to measure the time of the function itself, not the time of running a program. by running the same function a million times inside a given process, the time information I get for Lisp can be expressed as 1000000(binomial+looper) and for the C as 1000000(binomial+looper)+startup to find the time of the looper and the startup costs, I ran both with (binomial 35 35) to find the cost of the function call. those timings were subtracted from the times I listed. considering the amount of idiocy I get from C users when timing stuff and C loses or proves to be less than the super-efficient hands-down winner of all contests, my belief that C damages people's brains in irreparable ways is indeed solidifying. #\Erik -- 1,3,7-trimethylxanthine -- a basic ingredient in quality software.