> 
> > 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.

But on what side are you ? 

Looking at your signature you seems like a big fan of functionnal programming 
but you are sending opposite signals in your post. 
It is not clear to me what is your point. What do you want to demonstrate ? 


> 
> ...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)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
> 
>