[clean-list] God must be programming in Clean

[Siegfried Gonzi]

"Richard A. O'Keefe" wrote:


> For what it's worth, on my machine Haskell code compiled by GHC 4.08
> ran at 80% of the speed of the C code, and could have been more if I
> had bothered to read the manual

I imagine it for other LISP distributions; but my LISP is hopfully lost
in the Nirwana.

> to find out how to pass better options
> on to the C compiler used as a back end. 

This is not of great surprise. Do you really believe that I wanted
conclude any results from that comparison, no. I wanted only show that
Clean without problems stand the test. And I have to say this because
5minutes after the original poster in comp.lang.lisp somone posted that
on his UNIX LISP is as fast as C. I wanted to show only that Clean does
also well.


As I have also written in comp.lang.functional such microbenchmarks are
often not worth especially when someone deals with arrays (e.g. my Mops
on the Mac will pass every microbenchbark but sucks at arrays). 

(stuff here)

 
> What does this tell us about the relative merits of C, Lisp, Clean,
> and Scheme?

That does tell me after seeing the solution in comp.lang.lisp (from an
Franz Inc. responsible) that there is an faster solution tailored for
x86 architecture. But in my eyes the Clean solution is much more clearer
and as we have seen not so cluttered amongst architectures.
 
> Nothing, really.  If it did, people wouldn't be using Java.

Sorry for hyping. But I always speak from the numerical-side. When I
think on computing I think on executing numerical computations. 

But there are people, they think when it comes to computing on other
possibilities (for example parsing).


S. Gonzi