[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
MCS vs Procyon vs MCL benchmark
- To: ALCABES@applelink.apple.com, D0966@applelink.apple.com, email@example.com
- Subject: MCS vs Procyon vs MCL benchmark
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Michael Wirth)
- Date: Fri, 5 Jul 91 12:07:28 CDT
- Cc: email@example.com
Here's a copy of a recent msg I posted to the comp.lang.lisp newsgroup.
Subject: Re: MCS: A portable object system for Common Lisp
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <1991Jul3.email@example.com>
Organization: Rice University, Houston
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Juergen Kopp) writes:
>The Meta Class System (MCS) is a portable object-oriented extension
>of Common Lisp. MCS is highly efficient and integrates the
>functionality of CLOS, the Common Lisp Object System, and TELOS
>MCS is more efficient in time and space than comparable systems we
>know, including commercial CLOS implementations.
To which John Carroll (firstname.lastname@example.org) replied:
>I was somewhat surprised at this claim, considering that commercial CLOS
>implementations are able to take advantage of internal compiler hooks,
>knowledge of stack frame contents etc.
>So I thought I'd test it out using Procyon CL. ...
>Results (on a Mac IIci, CPU time and garbage generated)
>MCS (v1.3.1 / Procyon CL 2.1.4): 0.100 sec, 3200 bytes
>Procyon CLOS (2.1.4) : 0.100 sec, 0 bytes
I ran John Carroll's benchmark test, also on a Mac IIci (with and without a
Micron Technologies cache card), but using Apple's Macintosh Common Lisp 2.0
beta 1 patch 3, with its native CLOS. Here are my results:
MCL 2.0b1p3 (cache card off) 0.072 sec (per 100 repetitions)
MCL 2.0b1p3 (cache card on) 0.039 sec (85% faster!)
Notes: I used 10,000 repetitions, run multiple times, to get accurate answers.
On the first run only, 184 bytes of memory were allocated, thereafter zero.
John Carroll, did you use a cache card?
Petroleum Information Corp.