TheSwamp
Code Red => .NET => Topic started by: Andrey Bushman on December 08, 2012, 03:54:04 PM
-
Which a code work faster: LISP (compiled/uncompiled), or .NET? Anybody tested it?
-
As I understand it, .NET API is significantly faster than LISP API at execution (task dependent?), but may often be more time consuming at development, and debugging.
FWIW - Here's the first in a small series of articles from AdnDevBlog, that may be relevant:
The Right Tools for the Job - AutoCAD Part 1 (http://adndevblog.typepad.com/autocad/2012/07/the-right-tools-for-the-job-autocad-part-1.html)
-
Which a code work faster: LISP (compiled/uncompiled), or .NET? Anybody tested it?
It depends on what the code does, and whether you are talking about LISP in general or AutoLISP/Visual LISP.
Most full-blown LISP implementations can be compiled to native code that can run as fast as native code compiled from C/C++. That's not true for AutoLISP and there are other limitations in AutoLISP that can make it slow, depending on what the code must do.
For example, there are no arrays or hashtable-based containers to provide fast indexed access or key-based lookups, and that means that LISP code that needs to do things which arrays and hashtable containers are efficient for, will be far slower.
There are some kludges that allow LISP programmers to work around some of those limitations (for example, to simulate arrays, one can generate symbols with 'mangled' names that contain numeric values representing an array element position, and assign the array element values to the symbols).
-
FWIW - Here's the first in a small series of articles from AdnDevBlog, that may be relevant:
The Right Tools for the Job - AutoCAD Part 1 (http://adndevblog.typepad.com/autocad/2012/07/the-right-tools-for-the-job-autocad-part-1.html)
Thank you. It is interesting for me.
It depends on what the code does, and whether you are talking about LISP in general or AutoLISP/Visual LISP.
Yes, I mean the AutoLISP/Visual LISP. Thank you!