From: lm@mcvoy.com (Larry McVoy)
Subject: [TUHS] lisp challenge
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 15:41:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180216234147.GF27574@mcvoy.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1982c016-3eb6-cadd-75e7-80d2a081ac07@telegraphics.com.au>
On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 06:18:28PM -0500, Toby Thain wrote:
> On 2018-02-16 5:56 PM, Arthur Krewat wrote:
> > Has ANY language (except assembler) EVER outperformed C in a big way?
> >
> > Give or take any optimizations that may be done by either?
>
> As Tim wisely pointed out, performance isn't a property of a language,
> but a program, so the idea that C is some kind of untouchable ultimate
> in speed makes no sense.
Nobody claimed that. I claimed, based on what I've been told by people
who programmed in lisp and some small personal experience, that lisp
was and is perceived as a slow language, certainly slower than C.
Lisp fans hate that claim because they want everyone to program in Lisp,
or at least let them program in lisp.
I tipped my hat to the belief, I've never experience it myself but I've
heard it claimed, that a skilled lisp coder solves problems, especially
compiler like problems, in lisp faster than a skilled C programmer would.
I think that reality is that lispers like lisp because they can claim
they are "done" faster than they would if they had to do the same thing
in C (or other procedural) languages.
That is a HORRIBLE reason to like a language. In my not at all
humble opinion. If lisp were a language that was easy to read, for all
programmers not just people who love lisp, OK, maybe. But it is not,
it's a miserable language to scan and understand. Contrast it with C or
go or any of other procedural languages. Any programmer can read C
and quickly understand what it is doing. The same is not true of
lisp.
I strongly suspect that lisp people optimize for speed of writing
whereas most experienced people optimize for the speed of reading.
It's write one, read many.
> Therefore nobody should be shocked that programs in other languages
> certainly _have_ beaten C for the same tasks.
But not lisp. Or at least, nobody wants to take up my grep challenge.
--lm
P.S. For the record, I tried to like lisp. I wrote lisp programs,
I tried. Just like I tried to like emacs. I'm apparently not smart
enough to join the hallowed grounds where the lispers live. C/vi for
stupid me.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-16 23:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-16 21:01 Larry McVoy
2018-02-16 21:03 ` Larry McVoy
2018-02-16 22:05 ` Bakul Shah
2018-02-16 22:28 ` Larry McVoy
2018-02-16 22:53 ` Donald ODona
2018-02-16 23:01 ` Arthur Krewat
2018-02-16 22:56 ` Arthur Krewat
2018-02-16 23:02 ` Larry McVoy
2018-02-16 23:18 ` Toby Thain
2018-02-16 23:41 ` Larry McVoy [this message]
2018-02-16 23:49 ` Bakul Shah
2018-02-16 23:34 ` Andy Kosela
2018-02-16 23:44 Noel Chiappa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20180216234147.GF27574@mcvoy.com \
--to=lm@mcvoy.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).