Jim Veitch wrote:

> At 07:29 AM 3/16/98 -0500, you wrote:
> >
> >What are the deployment options for 4.3 apps?   I could post the 4.3 code if
> >some kind soul would be willing to compile it and send me a runtime.  I'd
> >love to get an apples-to-apples time for Lisp posted at the site.  Lisp still
> >may not end up the winner, though-- I haven't written the C++ version yet.

Well, I have written the C++ version now  (see
http://www.infinet.com/~btobin/perf.html ), and ACL is still comfortably ahead of
the pack.  The C++ code is running at 3.8 seconds, roughly.That will drop as
performance enhancements suggested by folks at comp.lang.c++ are implemented, but
I think Lisp has a pretty good chance of staying in front.

> Are you are supported ACL Win Professional user?  (I can't recall...).

Unfortunately not.  I'm hoping to use this performance test to convince my bosses
that we should be.

>  If so, you can qualify for the ACL 5 for Windows pre-beta program, which
> includes the new 4.3 style compiler.  Otherwise, we'll be releasing a ACL5
> Lite for Windows in a couple of months.

In the meantime, if someone could compile the code for me and ship me a runtime
(assuming this wouldn't violate the ACL 4.3.2 license), I'd surely appreciate it.
I expect some attention to be paid to these results (in newsgroup circles, so
we're not talking massive numbers of people) as part of the ongoing Java-C++
performance dispute.  If I can also show unqualified numbers showing that ACL
beats both languages on NT, that may help to raise some consciousness out there.