| Im sorry i similar things on my sbcl, and i cannot see the output you are seeing. CL-USER> (defun fx-add (x y) (declare (optimize (speed 3) (safety 0) (debug 0)) (type fixnum x y))
(+ x y))[OUT]: FX-ADD CL-USER> (disassemble #'fx-add) ; disassembly for FX-ADD ; Size: 27 bytes. Origin: #x55498736 ; FX-
ADD ; 36: 48D1FA SAR RDX, 1 ; 39: 48D1FF SAR RDI, 1 ; 3C: 4801FA ADD RDX, RDI ; 3F: 48D1E2 SHL RDX, 1 ; 42: 710A JNO L0 ; 44: 48D1DA RCR RDX, 1 ; 47: FF1425E8070050 CALL [#x500007E8] ;
#x54602570: ALLOC-SIGNED-BIGNUM-IN-RDX ; 4E: L0: C9 LEAVE ; 4F: F8 CLC ; 50: C3 RET [OUT]: NIL ```
it looks inefficient but i think it can still be optimized better.
SBCL is mediocre at best at optimizations but most people do say that. I have not heard anyone calling it as fast as or faster than C/C++.
I think sbcl being mediocre has more to do with how the compiler and its optimizations are structured rather than some inherent inefficiency of common lisp. I agree with you that lisps have a terrible UX problem. But that is slowly changing. Alive for VSCode is a nice tool if you want to try it out. I personally use neovim for my CL development. fits me well enough. The biggest reason why someone might choose CL for performance would be the abiliy to simply hack in the compiler as it is running to make custom optimization passes, memory allocations and structuring, very minute GC and allocator control, custom instructions and ability to tell sbcl how to use them WITHOUT RELOADING SBCL. Those are just the basics in my opinion. Performance has nothing to do with the language...except ig the start times?
Beyond that its a game of memory management[which, im pretty sure you can hack too in CL] all this low level power while still being able to write soo much abstraction that you can slap a whole ass language in CL like APL! |
I would think that it takes a bit more knowledge to judge that.
You'll need to understand a bit more how to declare types to achieve better results.