"an average of 6.2 years for Lisp versus 9.6 for C/C++ and 7.7 for Java"
7.7 years for Java (from Nov 1999)? Is that 7.7 years of programming any
language or Java specifically?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de
> Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 4:16 AM
> To: Gavin Thomas Nicol
> Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: Lisp, the secret weapon.
> Gavin Thomas Nicol wrote:
> > Could be... but in functional languages, there are a lot of
> > optimizations that you can perform, to the point where in
> > some cases, compiled functional code can be much faster than
> > C/C++.
> Just checking, we all here are aware of
> (since the original
> is down) and
> > For that matter, I wrote a SECDR machine a long time ago, and
> > the interpreter is so tiny is *easily* fits in CPU caches, so
> > it is really, really fast. I bet it'd eat most JAVA VMs for
> > lunch, even with a JIT.
> > That kinds of reminds me of FORTH... but that's probably
> > another thread ;-)
> A modern MISC Forth CPU will easily fit into an FPGA.
> In fact it does, I've seen VHDL versions of functional
> CPUs making the rounds on a few mailing lists.
> In case any of you have not been tracking what Chuck has
> been doing in the last half decade, have a gander at:
> Forth *might* come back, through the following pathways:
> * embedded RAM CPUs cum networking (if all you got is a few MBit
> RAM, you'd want to use a CPU which won't take more than 20 k
> transistors, and which runs very tight (threaded) code)
> * FPGAs and printable hardware (i.e. where you print functional
> circuits using an inkjet with polymer and semiconductor inks)
> * nanotechnology (it would be nice to design a MISC CPU
> in a cube full of bucky transistors)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 06 2001 - 08:04:36 PDT