←back to thread

Web Embeddable Common Lisp

(turtleware.eu)
141 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | 25 Jun 25 15:33 UTC | HN request time: 0.228s | source
Show context
jinlisp ◴[25 Jun 25 17:43 UTC] No.44379936[source]▶
When executing (time (loop for i below (expt 10 8) count t)) it takes a long time, sbcl takes less than a second on this. So not useful when speed is required. More: (time (loop for i below 1000000 count t) takes 7 seconds on my computer, so counting to (exp 10 8) would take 700 seconds, and sbcl do that in 0.1 seconds, so in this example the ratio is 7000 times slower than sbcl.
replies(2): >>44380005 #>>44385720 #
mishoo ◴[26 Jun 25 09:40 UTC] No.44385720[source]▶
In SLip: https://lisperator.net/s/slip/

    SL-USER> (time (loop for i below (expt 10 8) count t))
    Evaluation time: 19376ms
    100000000

    SL-USER> (time (loop for i below 1000000 count t))
    Evaluation time: 272ms
    1000000

    SL-USER> (defun fib (n) (if (< n 2) n (+ (fib (- n 1)) (fib (- n 2)))))
    #'FIB
    SL-USER> (time (fib 32))
    Evaluation time: 1601ms
    2178309
These timings are in Firefox; Chromium is almost 2x faster. Also, it doesn't completely freeze the browser in the mean time (we have green threads).

I used to think it's quite slow, but somehow it's much faster than any other posted here. The only Lisp in browser I know to beat SLip (by a large margin) is JSCL, which compiles to JS.

replies(1): >>44386905 #
jinlisp ◴[26 Jun 25 12:47 UTC] No.44386905[source]▶
Both slip and jscl takes the same time in my computer: 63 seconds to run the loop.
replies(2): >>44386980 #>>44387204 #
1. mishoo ◴[26 Jun 25 13:26 UTC] No.44387204[source]▶
I can see what happens there in JSCL.. I took a look at

    (disassemble (lambda () (loop for i below (expt 10 8) count t)))
Seems TAGBODY is compiled into a while(true) which sets an exception handler on each iteration. (and then, LOOP macroexpands into a TAGBODY). I don't think there's a better way to do it, BTW — JS is simply not a friendly compilation target. But `try` on each iteration is quite costly, that's most probably the bottleneck here.