Jim
As an ACL/Win3.02 user I'd like to know if I can look forward to this
sort of performance with the forthcoming combined ACL5 for NT.
Ray Drew
From: Jim Veitch
To: Bruce Tobin
Cc: Allegro CL mailing list
Subject: Re: [ACL] Help with performance comparison
Date: Monday, March 16, 1998 7:25AM
Bruce,
Turns out I am wrong. ACL 4.3.2 on NT is somewhat faster (and generates
tighter code) than ACL 4.3 on Linux. The NT compiler is of later
vintage
and includes more optimizations.
Jim.
At 09:16 AM 3/15/98 -0500, Bruce Tobin wrote:
> I have written a small application the same way (as far as
>possible) in Java, Dylan, Common Lisp, and Smalltalk. The application
>is a simple version of the CN2 rule induction algorithm. The source
>code for each version is available at:
>
> www.infinet.com/~btobin/perf.html
>
> The timings for each (5 trials):
> Java (VJ++ 6.0 preview):
> 1 9.304 seconds
> 2 7.521 seconds
> 3 7.121 seconds
> 4 7.381 seconds
> 5 7.832 seconds
>
> Lisp (ACL/Win3.02):
> 1 11.997 seconds
> 2 11.557 seconds
> 3 11.397 seconds
> 4 11.686 seconds
> 5 11.476 seconds
>
> Dylan (Harlequin Dylan 1.0 beta 2):
> 1 6.965591 seconds
> 2 7.729048 seconds
> 3 7.093233 seconds
> 4 7.170502 seconds
> 5 7.785091 seconds
>
> Smalltalk (Smalltalk MT 1.5 beta 3): 10.3 seconds.
> 1 8.422 seconds
> 2 8.492 seconds
> 3 8.301 seconds
> 4 8.492 seconds
> 5 8.352 seconds
>
> Your advice on speeding up the Lisp code is solicited, but I think
>my main problem is that I'm using ACL/Win3.02 instead of ACL 4.3 for
>NT. I've run the code under 4.3 for Linux, and the times were
>excellent:
>
>Lisp (ACL 4.3 for Linux):
>
>1 2.624 seconds
>2 2.524 seconds
>3 2.515 seconds
>4 2.525 seconds
>5 2.510 seconds
>
>Does anyone have 4.3 for Linux and 4.3 for NT running on the same
>machine? How does performance differ from one to the other?
>
>Thanks,
>Bruce T.
>
>
>
>
>
>