> This was primarily for the lack of good parallel, concurrent garbage > collectors in Common Lisp implementations.
ABCL on the JVM works pretty good these days. It’s not as fast as SBCL, but much more robust from a runtime (and GC) perspective. Manfred > Am 03.12.2020 um 13:57 schrieb Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net>: > > This was primarily for the lack of good parallel, concurrent garbage > collectors in Common Lisp implementations. The CL version of elPrep was > actually still a tad faster than any of the C++, Go, or Java versions, but we > had to work hard to avoid long GC pauses. elPrep allocates a lot of memory, > and the pause time hurts a lot. We solved this by, basically, disabling the > garbage collector, and reusing memory manually as much as possible, which > turned the program into almost a manually memory-managed affair. > > Manual memory management became a huge burden because we wanted to add more > and more components to the software, and then it becomes almost impossible to > predict object lifetimes. > > We evaluated Go and Java for their concurrent, parallel GCs, and C++ for its > reference counting. Interestingly, reference counting is often described as > more efficient than GC, but in our case that’s not true: Because there is a > huge object graph at some stage that needs to be deallocated, reference > counting incurs more or less the same pause that a non-concurrent GC does. > That’s why we don’t expect Rust to fare better here either. > > Again, we’re still prototyping in Common Lisp, which is a huge win, because > this makes us much more productive. > > Pascal > >> On 3 Dec 2020, at 12:16, Svante Carl v. Erichsen <svante.v.erich...@web.de> >> wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> I vaguely remember having read that you do that. I'm still wondering >> why, though. I guess that you wrote about it, but I can't find it right >> now. >> >> So, if it's not because Common Lisp is not seen as “production ready”, >> why rewrite instead of just adding the production parts (I guess >> hardening, monitoring, logging, documentation etc.)? >> >> Yours aye >> >> Svante >> >> >> Pascal Costanza writes: >> >>> In my opinion, prototyping in Common Lisp, and then translating to a >>> different programming language for creating the final product, is a >>> perfectly valid professional use of Common Lisp. It’s useful to know >>> which programming languages may be good targets for such an approach. >>> >>> This is, of course, not ideal, because this can easily be >>> misunderstood as a statement that Common Lisp is not fit for >>> purpose. However, I don’t see it that way, and you cannot control >>> people’s perceptions. >>> >>> In our particular case, our manager is on board with this approach, >>> and this allows us to pay for regular licenses for LispWorks. The >>> approach works really well for us. >>> >>> Pascal >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>>> On 3 Dec 2020, at 05:29, Dave Cooper <david.coo...@genworks.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Where else do Common Lispers go to talk shop, whether CL or something >>>>> else? >>>> >>>> >>>> To me, Common Lispers "talking shop" by definition means talking about CL >>>> or related topics, not an open-ended "something else." I would turn that >>>> question around and ask "where else do Common Lispers go for unapologetic >>>> mutual support for their chosen or imposed computing platform, which is >>>> Common Lisp?" If groups such as this mailing list become diluted with >>>> hand wringing, naysaying, and negativity, then you tell me Tim, where do >>>> actual Common Lispers go? >>>> >>>> >>>>> CL is very good but it is not perfect. Debating the relative merits of >>>>> various languages can lead to cross-pollination of ideas. It appears >>>>> that >>>>> most innovation is happening elsewhere, and I hope this community can >>>>> bring the best of CL into a worthy successor, whatever it may be called. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If "most innovation is happening elsewhere" then those of us who have the >>>> propensity to look into other languages can serve the community here by >>>> reporting back the cool things they find and discussing how we may or may >>>> not be able to co-opt such things into CL. If such is the perspective and >>>> purpose of "debating the merits of various languages," then indeed, such >>>> debate can result in productive cross-pollination, and this is needed and >>>> wanted. >>>> >>>> If the intention and focus is instead to sing the praises of other >>>> environments in order to seek fellow converts or validation for >>>> converting, and doing this while specifically targeting a group set up to >>>> support "professional common lispers," then I consider such efforts to be >>>> unhelpful in the context of this group and I would invite you to take such >>>> discussions into the forums of those other environments or into some >>>> general language discussion forums. >>>> >>>> Understand that not all of us have the "luxury" on the one hand, nor the >>>> desire on the other hand, to chase the dragon of the latest cool thing, >>>> and we look to groups such as this one specifically to support our crusty >>>> old entrenched mentality -- and to improve our environment as best we can, >>>> understanding the inherent limitations that exist. This is the life we >>>> have chosen. >>>> >>>> >> >> > > -- > Pascal Costanza > > >
