Subject: Re: [executables] was: why Haskell hasn't replaced CL yet?
From: Erik Naggum <>
Date: 2000/03/03
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Message-ID: <>

* Samuel A. Falvo II
| What part of this didn't you understand?

  why you can't figure out that start-up time from storage media is utterly
  and completely irrelevant when you start 50 processes within the same

  incidentally, I consider your question an instance of losing your temper.
  control your own temper, you hypocrite, or shut up about that of others!

| The only point I saw was that you can launch 2 copies of ACL 25 times a
| second each.

  this is obviously an unwarranted conclusion on your part, since it took
  1.5 second user+system time and 1 second real time, and only user+system
  matters.  you have no data to support your conclusion, but you do have
  data to support that I could fire up 33 instances a second on one CPU
  from this data.  so I just wish you could engage your brain before you
  engage your agenda.

| Are you for real?  Why are you getting so upset?  Why can't you conduct
| yourself like an adult?  What did I do to deserve the personal attacks on
| me by you?  Where have I attacked you?  And what did I attack you with?

  you're being obnoxious, stupid, impenetrably dense, and behave like an
  asshole with an irrelevant axe to grind.  that's what I object to.  and
  now you can't even control your own temper.  how sickeningly _pathetic_.

| All I did was point out that there were ambiguities in the measurements made
| due to certain "basic" assumptions.  I'm not interested in the theoretical
| performance of ACL.  I'm interested in the real-world, down-to-Earth,
| in-the-trenches performance of ACL.

  and that's what you got, dude.  now, will you _ever_ be satisfied?