Extending the address space of MIT Cscheme (long reply)

[gls@Think.COM]

   Date: Thu, 5 May 88 10:01 EDT
   From: Stephen Robbins <Stever@waikato.s4cc.symbolics.com>

       Date: Wed, 4 May 88 22:02:40 edt
       From: jinx@CHAMARTIN.AI.MIT.EDU (Guillermo J. Rozas)

       ... few Lisp implementations (if any) can currently match the speed that
       can be obtained from C or FORTRAN in numeric code.  What's wrong with
       coding a commonly used procedure in a language which will make it more
       efficient?  Please show me a Lisp which can compete with C in this regard.
       If you manage to do this, I strongly suspect that the number of arcane
       declarations in the Lisp code will make it at least as unreadable as C, so
       you're no better off.

   I was under the impression that LISP's numeric inefficiency was, in general, a
   fallacy.  Didn't MacLISP generate better numeric code than DEC's FORTRAN, some
   years back?

   - Stephen

See, for example, the following two references:

Fateman, Richard J.  "Reply to an Editorial."  ACM SIGSAM Bulletin 25
(March 1973), 9-11.

Brooks, Rodney A., Gabriel, Richard P., and Steele, Guy L., Jr.  An
optimizing compiler for lexically scoped LISP.  Proceedings of the 1982
Symposium on Compiler Construction.  ACM SIGPLAN (Boston, June 1982),
261-275.  Proceedings published as ACM SIGPLAN Notices 17, 6 (June 1982).

--Guy