>If it was a reasonable claim, then would someone name the production OS from the early 70s written in LISP, and explain how it's better?
Better or more performant for some measure of performance? I mean, you can always read the UNIX hater's handbook if you're interested in qualities that UNIX did not possess decades ago.
>You need much more sufficient-smartness to make LISP fast. Isn't it obvious? Or is that somehow counter to any history you've read, except when cherry-picked and reinterpreted by some HN commenter?
If you want to make a pedantic argument, then no, it's not difficult to make Common Lisp potentially as fast as C. This is because I can very easily drop down to a level of safety which is on the same level as C. This is, of course, unsafe and I would never recommend it.
I don't understand why numerics performance is cherry-picking, but "systems programming" (what does that mean? OS dev. only?) is not.
This would be a much simpler discussion if you concisely describe in a semi-formal manner why C has a larger potential to be fast than CL. If you did so, it probably would be a lot more difficult for me or anyone else to refute your claims.
> If you want to make a pedantic argument, then no, it's not difficult to make Common Lisp potentially as fast as C. This is because I can very easily drop down to a level of safety which is on the same level as C. This is, of course, unsafe and I would never recommend it.
That's stating the obvious, which I had already stated in advance if you care to read it. (Don't miss the extra "If you're masochistic enough"). What you're presenting is a Turing tarpit kind of argument - totally irrelevant to anybody with a sense for practicality.
> Better or more performant for some measure of performance? I mean, you can always read the UNIX hater's handbook if you're interested in qualities that UNIX did not possess decades ago.
From what I remember, the Unix hater's handbook is half satire (based on good understanding), and half wrong. Yes, UNIX is the worst useable OS, except all the alternatives.
> I don't understand why numerics performance is cherry-picking, but "systems programming" (what does that mean? OS dev. only?) is not.
Because most programs aren't numerics programs, but every software system needs "systems programming". And coincidentally, C was made for systems programming. Unlike Fortran, it was not made specifically for numerics / scientific programming.
> This would be a much simpler discussion if you concisely describe in a semi-formal manner why C has a larger potential to be fast than CL. If you did so, it probably would be a lot more difficult for me or anyone else to refute your claims.
I suggest actually reading my comments, because I've written all that I have to say. In one sentence, the other side's arguments are all either of the sufficiently-smart-compiler kind, or the performance equivalent of the Turing Tarpit fallacy.
Better or more performant for some measure of performance? I mean, you can always read the UNIX hater's handbook if you're interested in qualities that UNIX did not possess decades ago.
>You need much more sufficient-smartness to make LISP fast. Isn't it obvious? Or is that somehow counter to any history you've read, except when cherry-picked and reinterpreted by some HN commenter?
If you want to make a pedantic argument, then no, it's not difficult to make Common Lisp potentially as fast as C. This is because I can very easily drop down to a level of safety which is on the same level as C. This is, of course, unsafe and I would never recommend it.
I don't understand why numerics performance is cherry-picking, but "systems programming" (what does that mean? OS dev. only?) is not.
This would be a much simpler discussion if you concisely describe in a semi-formal manner why C has a larger potential to be fast than CL. If you did so, it probably would be a lot more difficult for me or anyone else to refute your claims.