On: The usability of advanced type systems: Rust as a ...

[skavi]

Not exactly a class, but there are runtimes of concrete programs written in SBCL and C++ here:

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

No direct Rust SBCL comparisons, but generally Rust and C++ perform similarly.

There's some discussion on the limitations of SBCL's GC in this thread:

https://old.reddit.com/r/Common_Lisp/comments/j8z1j7/how_doe...

[dgb23 → skavi]

It’s interesting to see that a fully dynamic, GC language manages to stay within 1x, 5x, 10x range of C++ in these tests.

I haven’t looked at the tests themselves so I can’t speak to their application.

But the range of performance for dynamic languages seems to be enormous. Much bigger than the one of static languages.

[tmtvl → dgb23]

> fully dynamic

Well, no, it's SBCL. Common Lisp has support for types, but most compilers only use them for optimization, SBCL goes one step further and emits warnings when you mismatch types. And looking at the code, I can see lots of type declarations.

It's also interesting to note that the code does not seem to be using SBCL's new SIMD library*, so it could be sped up even more.

* <https://github.com/marcoheisig/sb-simd>, see the texinfo file for documentation.

[jjtheblunt → skavi]

thank you!