Re: How powerful is language build in vim compare with the language build in emacs?

* 2010-03-26 03:21 (+0100), Tony Mechelynck wrote:

> [...] it was (I think) a simple example of FORTH, though it doesn't do
> justice to the language. I doubt Lisp is more powerful; I suppose it
> might be *as* powerful and I'm not sure about speed -- oh well, let's
> give it the benefit of the doubt until I study it.

A short introduction to Common Lisp's features ("power" meaning powerful
features):

http://abhishek.geek.nz/docs/features-of-common-lisp

A performance comparison of language implementations ("power" meaning
computational power):

http://dan.corlan.net/bench.html

I did the same performance test (the single-body version) with GCC 4.4.3
(a C compiler), GForth 0.7.0, SBCL 1.0.31 (a Common Lisp implementation)
and Python 2.5.5 (interpreted). My system is a 32-bit AMD Sempron 3000+.

GCC 0.47 seconds (the hand-optimized version)
SBCL 0.67 seconds (with DECLARE and THE expressions)
GForth 3.8 seconds (the hand-optimized version)
SBCL 9.5 seconds (without DECLARE and THE expressions)
Python 35 seconds

(Common Lisp has dynamic typing by default but programmer can use
DECLARE and THE expressions to give hints to the compiler about
variables' type. They help optimizing the compiled code.)

DISCLAIMER: My tests may suck so I suggest everyone do better ones. :-)

--
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to vim_use+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.