Is Scheme/LISP faster than C/C++

[bolega]

Quoting the following post :-

I am looking for expert opinions

http://groups.google.com/group/gnu.emacs.help/browse_thread/thread/54fb97d15b234d31#

Probably doesn't meet your intent, but this is a really impressive bit
of (whacky) art:

Lisp runs faster than C. Once you get more time away from screwing
Palestinians, and other false-flags, you will find ideas like these

How to make Lisp go faster than C
Didier Verna
Abstract
Contrary to popular belief, Lisp code can be very ef-
cient today: it can run as fast as equivalent C code
or even faster in some cases. In this paper, we explain
how to tune Lisp code for performance by introducing
the proper type declarations, using the appropriate
data structures and compiler information. We also
explain how e ciency is achieved by the compilers.
These techniques are applied to simple image process-
ing algorithms in order to demonstrate the announced
performance on pixel access and arithmetic operations
in both languages.

=======
Standard Disclaimer, nothing personal

Hey Racist and INcompetent FBI Bustards, where is the ANTHRAX Mailer ?
Where are the 4 blackboxes ? Where are the Pentagon Videos ? Why did
you release the 5 dancing Israelis compromising the whole 911
investigation ? If the Dubai Police can catch Mossad Murderers and put
the videos and Iranian Police can why cant you put the Pentagon
Videos ? If Iran police can put the AMERICAN TERRORIST, Riggi and
puting on INTERNATIONAL MEDIA a day after catching him without
TORTURE, why cant you put the INNOCENT patsies on the MEDIA. Why did
you have to LIE about Dr Afiya Siddiqui and torture that Innocent
little mother of 3 and smashing the skull of her one child ?

There are CRIMINAL cases against CIA CRIMINAL Bustards in Italian
courts.

FBI bustards paid a penalty of $5.8 million to Steven Hatfill, but
only because he was a white. They got away with MURDER of thousands of
Non-whites in all parts of the world.

Daily 911 news : http://911blogger.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7kGZ3XPEm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX18zUp6WPY

 

[bolega]

Sorry, I dont have access to the journal papers ... or I would do
research myself.

 

[nanothermite911fbibustards]

Sorry, I dont have access to the journal papers ... or I would do
research myself.

Here is the paper :

http://www.iaeng.org/IJCS/issues_v32/issue_4/IJCS_32_4_19.pdf

Get ghostview which can show you better font display of the older
types.

I give good help and I ask people to spread the info in my sig by
quoting it.

The FAT per DIEM FBI bustards use our TAX PAYER MONEY and INCOMPETENCE
is UNACCEPTABLE.

=====

Hey Racist and INcompetent FBI Bustards, where is the ANTHRAX Mailer ?
Where are the 4 blackboxes ? Where are the Pentagon Videos ? Why did
you release the 5 dancing Israelis compromising the whole 911
investigation ? If the Dubai Police can catch Mossad Murderers and put
the videos and Iranian Police can why cant you put the Pentagon
Videos ? If Iran police can put the AMERICAN TERRORIST, Riggi and
puting on INTERNATIONAL MEDIA a day after catching him without
TORTURE, why cant you put the INNOCENT patsies on the MEDIA. Why did
you have to LIE about Dr Afiya Siddiqui and torture that Innocent
little mother of 3 and smashing the skull of her one child ?

There are CRIMINAL cases against CIA CRIMINAL Bustards in Italian
courts.

FBI bustards paid a penalty of $5.8 million to Steven Hatfill, but
only because he was a white. They got away with MURDER of thousands of
Non-whites in all parts of the world.

Daily 911 news : http://911blogger.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRfhUezbKLw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7kGZ3XPEm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX18zUp6WPY

Conclusion : FBI bustards are RACIST and INcompetent. They could
neither catch the ANTHRAX or 911 YANK/Jew criminals nor could they
cover them up - whichever was their actual task.

SLASH the SALARIES of FBI/CIA/NSA etc BUSTARDS into half all across
tbe board, esp the whites/jew on the top.

 

[fortunatus]

For crying out loud, the best any compiler can do is make optimal
machine language. Many C compilers can do that over most inputs. So
can many Lisp compilers if you give the right type data. So it's a
moot point.

The only point to discuss would be that Scheme - in the R5 version of
the spec at least - doesn't have standard way to specify type data
unless I am mistaken. Therefore you will find that Scheme compilers
add their own syntax for it. Again we are led to a moot point.

 

[fortunatus]

One point that might be interesting, you do include C++ in your post.
Therefore some compare/contrast of C++ class member function
invocation rate versus Lisp object method invocation rate might be
meaningful. I'm sure if you Google back through comp.lang.lisp you
will find plenty on it already.

 

[Raymond Toy]

For crying out loud, the best any compiler can do is make optimal
machine language. Many C compilers can do that over most inputs. So

Is that why I had to use assembly code instead of C for some parts of my
previous projects?

There was even one example where the C compiler made spectacularly bad
code. I only needed 6 pointer registers (the arch has 8), but the
compiler decided to use only one or two and spilled and reloaded them
from the stack for each use. Yay!

Ray

 

[Grant Edwards]

I've heard it said, it is easy to beat C compilers for fast code, it's
just hard to beat them at benchmarks written for C. That is, do the same
type of things as what Scheme gives you, such as lots of dynamic
allocation and resizing, higher order functions, and closures, and you
won't find C faster.

I don't know about that...

It's hard to beat the speed of a program that segfaults immediately.

It's hardly fair if you're going to demand that the C program actually
works correctly.

 

[tni]

Is that why I had to use assembly code instead of C for some parts of my
previous projects?

There was even one example where the C compiler made spectacularly bad
code. I only needed 6 pointer registers (the arch has 8), but the
compiler decided to use only one or two and spilled and reloaded them
from the stack for each use. Yay!

For non-vector code, it's usually possible to get the compiler to
generate very good code. There was likely an issue with pointer aliasing
in your C code, so the compiler wasn't allowed to keep stuff in registers.

For non-vector code, it's very hard to be better with assembly than
optimal C/C++ code (with a decent current compiler), unless you need
specific hardware features (like the carry flag) that aren't exposed in
C/C++.

In general, having pointers prevents a lot of optimizations, so at least
in theory it's possible for other languages to do significantly better
than C/C++. (But C/C++ has had huge investments in compiler technology.)

 

[fortunatus]

There was even one example where the C compiler made spectacularly bad
code.  I only needed 6 pointer registers (the arch has 8), but the
compiler decided to use only one or two and spilled and reloaded them
from the stack for each use.  Yay!

That's one of the worst compiler stories I've heard since 1979! How
awful!