Could you compile the Common Lisp file?

[orront]

Could you open up SBCL and time (progn (compile-file “lisprb.lisp”) (load “lisprb.fasl”))? To my knowledge the SBCL shebang script option does not compile to FASLs.

[niofis]

Will do, although I might not be able to test this soon. Thanks for the heads up.

[3b]

--script doesn't create a .fasl file, but by default sbcl compiles all non-trivial forms as part of evaluation, so it is running compiled code for the benchmark.

That does mean it is including the cost of compilation in the total runtime unlike C, but that is still a fairly small part of the total time.

[3b]

to compile separately, remove the (main) call from lisprb.lisp and do something like

sbcl --load lisprb.lisp --eval '(sb-ext:save-lisp-and-die "lisprb" :executable t :toplevel (function main))'
or
sbcl --load lisprb.lisp --eval '(sb-ext:save-lisp-and-die "lisprb" :executable t :toplevel (function main) :compression t)'

sbcl executables are fairly large, since they include entire runtime library, compiler, etc.
Compression makes them smaller, but might make them slower (or faster) to load depending on relative speed of drive/ram/cpu/etc.

Difference in times for compressed vs uncompressed vs --script seems to be pretty much lost in the noise for me though.

[guicho271828]

#29

[bpecsek]

Could you please rerun the benchmarks, optimally on a more recent CPU, and update the results in the README.md?

[bpecsek]

Any chance to update the README.md to reflect the speed of the PR-ed lisp codes?