From: Alex M. <kil...@ne...> - 2007-06-17 11:45:26
|
(message (Hello 'Chas) (you :wrote :on '(Sun, 17 Jun 2007 00:36:56 -0400)) ( CE> I was particularly surprised (pleasantly so!) by ABCL's speed. CE> Running at ~50% of SBCL is entirely acceptable given ABCL's Java CE> integration, attendant deployment options, and relative youth. heh, it's sometimes even faster than SBCL :) for example, vector DOT-PRODUCT defines as here (without type declarations): (defun dot-product (v1 v2) (loop for e1 across v1 for e2 across v2 sum (* e1 e2))) run 2x times faster on ABCL than on SBCL. another heavy numeric code (SVD) was running aprox same speed in ABCL and SBCL, but adding type declarations helped SBCL a lot. you can also find some benchmarks here, although some might be outdated: http://www.cliki.net/Performance%20Benchmarks CE> and nothing similar was apparent in a couple of searches online. I'd CE> be very interested in learning what others view as the key weaknesses CE> of ABCL (besides, or perhaps more specifically than those cited on CE> the project page). ok, working with ABCL for quite significant time, I can list some: 1. compiler doesn't do well with closures and lexical variables. Peter says that it is some fundamental flaw in the compiler, but i still hope that it might be some easily fixable bug :) 2. CLOS is slow and does not have fancy features, like non-trivial method combinations and MOP. i do not use CLOS, so it's ok for me :). some applications/libraries using CLOS work. 3. debugging is not great. unfortunately i do not remember debugging experience with other implementations, so i do not know if it's really bad or not :). for compiled code there's almost no debugging information. ) (With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm) "I am everything you want and I am everything you need") |