Re: [Chicken-users] benchmarks from the Gambit world

[Dan]

So, in other words, Felix tried the benchmarks pointed
to by Sven and found Chicken to be lacking... :) ?

Sorry, just couldn't resist it :) Felix has a good
point. For better or worse, I have briefly tried
Gambit, but found Chicken's ecosystem (SRFI support,
libraies) richer. Of the free Schemes available
around, I found SISC and Chicken to be the most
useful.

For performance and numerical simulations, I found
pure Chicken unsatisfactory. Mixing in some C made it
better, but that quickly becomes limiting. Another
good option (for me) was to use OCAML with a Scheme
interpreter on top (OCS).

-- Dan

> Thanks, Sven. That is pretty interesting.
> 
> But I'd like to point out that all this benchmarking
> mania somewhat misses the
> point. Scheme implementors are often performance
> freaks (Clinger, Feeley)
> and put too much emphasis in raw performance. This
> is in part because Scheme
> traditinionally is a playground for compiler writers
> and because pure Scheme
> is so useless that one is tempted to use it only for
> benchmarking... ;-)
> 
> Scheme implementers would do good by concentrating
> on things that really
> count (like providing extensions, foreign language
> bindings and better
> development environments). Scheme's metaprogramming
> facilities (combined
> with a good ffi) is more than enough to allow
> specialized and highly
> optimized code generation that is sufficiently fast
> for all purposes.
> 
> 
> cheers,
> felix
> 
> -- 
> http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br:8081/blog/blog.ssp
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-users mailing list
> address@hidden
>
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com