RE: How to write fast Numerical Analysis code in CLISP?

[Matthias Lindner <matthias@intellektik.informatik.th-darmstadt.de>]

Peter C Olsen writes:
 > Matthias ---
 > 
 > Your email was interesting because most people have told me that AKCL
 > is much faster, once it has been compiled.  Was your code being
 > interpreted or compiled?  

Hmmm, I like Clisp very much - but anyway I'm not as unfair, as to
compare interpreted to compiled code! ;)
Of course I've compiled everything! 
To complete my "mini-benchmark":

         +------------+--------+-------------+-------------+
         |Lisp        | Memory | Interpreted |  Compiled   |
         +------------+--------+-------------+-------------+
         |clisp       |  1.5MB |     51 sec  |     10 sec  |
         |Xakcl       |  5.0MB |    116 sec  |     52 sec  |
         |Allegro 4.0 | 16.0MB |    142 sec  |     12 sec  |
         |Lucid 4.0   | 39.0MB |     65 sec  |      7 sec  |
         +------------+--------+-------------+-------------+

All tests were run on a moderatly busy SPARCstation 1 (SunOS 4.1.3, 16MB RAM)
If your programs run significantly faster under Allegro, than under 
Clisp - maybe I'm doing exactly what Clisp likes - and nobody else ... ;)

--Matthias