[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: lisp machines vs. lisp on other boxes.

To: slug@r20.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: lisp machines vs. lisp on other boxes.
From: ALarson@hi-multics.arpa
Date: Fri, 29 May 87 23:12 CDT
Resent-date: Sat 30 May 87 02:11:29-CDT
Resent-from: CMP.SLUG@r20.utexas.edu
Resent-message-id: <12306428630.35.CMP.SLUG@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>
Resent-to: SLUG:;

Just to put a further twist in the conversation, we've just finished
doing a preliminary analysis of Lucid Vs Franz lisp on a Sun 3/50 (4mb
diskless) and came up with one overriding observarion.  Lucid was
unacceptably slow.  We attempted to compile 2 moderate sized files under
Lucid, and after 30 minutes gave up.  Both files compiled in about 8 min
with Franz.  Secondly, garbage collection appears to be faster although
I don't have any firm numbers in front of me, I do remember that a
garbage collect on a 160 with 16 mb mem (16 meg swap file also) took 5.2
seconds with Franz.

Aaron.  ALarson@HI-Multics

Follow-Ups:
- lisp machines vs. lisp on other boxes.
  - From: Rob Pettengill <rcp@mcc.com>

Prev by Date: SLUG mailings - Do you want to be on the list?
Next by Date: lisp machines vs. lisp on other boxes.
Previous by thread: SLUG mailings - Do you want to be on the list?
Next by thread: lisp machines vs. lisp on other boxes.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread