Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Ray tracer language comparison
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Thomas Fischbacher <Thomas.Fischbacher@P...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Ray tracer language comparison

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005, Yaron Minsky wrote:

> It seems like on the whole a more fitting riposte might have been to
> provide a version of the SBCL implementation that was 8x faster than
> Jon's, rather than to provide a crippled version of Jon's that was 8x
> slower.  But to each his own, I suppose....

What? You call that elegant use of higher order functions "crippled"? 
What a Blasphemy. I am really, truly outraged.

...on the other hand... 

[wicked thinking]
[most evil sniggering]
[pictures of the great evil genius playing the organ]
[more of all the above]
[ *clickediclick* ]

Bring that man to be, he shalt be served as well!

I just extended my analysis by another implementation in yet another 
language. This time, it's "Steel Bank Common Lisp". As this is a Lisp as 
well, I will be concerned primarily with comparing it against SBCL, but it 
may also be nice to compare it with OCaml, or Objective Caml.

There it is:

http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf/raytracer/#sbcl

-- 
regards,               tf@cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de              (o_
 Thomas Fischbacher -  http://www.cip.physik.uni-muenchen.de/~tf  //\
(lambda (n) ((lambda (p q r) (p p q r)) (lambda (g x y)           V_/_
(if (= x 0) y (g g (- x 1) (* x y)))) n 1))                  (Debian GNU)