"Strong typing vs. strong testing"
Pascal J. Bourguignon
pjb at informatimago.com
Fri Oct 1 17:02:55 EDT 2010
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Oct 1 17:02:55 EDT 2010
- Previous message (by thread): "Strong typing vs. strong testing"
- Next message (by thread): "Strong typing vs. strong testing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
"BartC" <bc at freeuk.com> writes: > "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb at informatimago.com> wrote in message > news:87sk0qkzhz.fsf at kuiper.lan.informatimago.com... > >> Nothing extraordinary here. Common Lisp is more efficient than C. >> http://www.lrde.epita.fr/~didier/research/verna.06.ecoop.pdf >> http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1144168 >> >> Actually, it's hard to find a language that has no compiler generating >> faster code than C... > > I had a quick look at Lisp to see if your claims had any basis. I > tried this program: > > (defun fib (n) > (if (< n 2) > n > (+ n (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2)) ) > )) > > But it gave the wrong results and it took ages to figure out why. Even > after downloading a working version for comparison, it's was difficult > to spot the extraneous 'n' (I think I was concentrating on getting the > round brackets all in the right places). > > I thought you were saying that Lisp (and dynamic typing in general) > was better for pointing out errors? The above error in C would have > been picked up more easily I think (due to less parentheses clutter, > and more obvious separators between terms). There are more parentheses in C (you must take into account {} and [] too, and <> in C++), and the additionnal separators in C are clutter. > As for speed, executing fib(38) took about 60 seconds on my machine > (gnu clisp with no switches set). Yes, you choosed the ONLY CL implementation having an interpreter by default, and which when compiling, compiles to a virtual machine. This happens also to be my favorite CL implementation, which tells you how much I care about those silly time benchmarks. If you want to try a CL implementation generating faster code, try SBCL. > (Compared with 3.5 seconds, for my > own interpreted, dynamic language, and 0.6 seconds for C.) -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
- Previous message (by thread): "Strong typing vs. strong testing"
- Next message (by thread): "Strong typing vs. strong testing"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list