Re: lisp performance was Re: problems with lisp

[Peter Seibel <address@hidden>]

Russ Ross <rgr22@cl.cam.ac.uk> writes:

> That's why the postscript was there: it's not a very practical
> example.  Most people would use the mapcar solution by default if
> they actually wanted to write this and I fully expected (and
> confirmed myself) that the "simple" solution would run faster.

Do you have a more practical example. Something where the real
"simple" version was not only too slow, but couldn't in fact be made
effecient without fundamentally rewriting it? I'm sincerely curious
because I've been thinking about this problem lately but don't have
enough real-world Common Lisp experience under my belt to have a lot
of good examples, one way or the other.

-Peter

-- 
Peter Seibel                                      peter@javamonkey.com

         Lisp is the red pill. -- John Fraser, comp.lang.lisp