Article View: comp.lang.prolog
Article #3175Re: Strings
From: Stanley T. Shebs
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1988 00:22
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 1988 00:22
16 lines
1409 bytes
1409 bytes
A minor point: I don't think I claimed that "`Lisp' didn't use lists for bignums any more"; if I did, it was a boner. For almost any possible design choice, you can find one or more systems in the past that made that choice. It is true that lists for bignums are unusual nowadays, but nobody (so far as I know) has made a scientific study as to whether lists are better/worse than vectors for representing bignums. Anybody need a masters thesis? >Did you make sure that all the relevant code was paged in before >measuring the performance of (fact 1000)? Ah yes, one of the nasty little details that a truly meaningful study would have to take into account. Still, I would expect all the relevant code to get paged in after the first few bignums... stan shebs shebs@cs.utah.edu
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<5376@utah-cs.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ut-sally!utah-cs!defun.utah.edu!shebsReferences:
<512@ecrcvax.UUCP> <768@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <5348@utah-cs.UUCP> <488@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk> <822@cresswell.quintus.UUCP>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ut-sally!utah-cs!defun.utah.edu!shebs From: shebs%defun.utah.edu.uucp@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog Subject: Re: Strings Message-ID: <5376@utah-cs.UUCP> Date: 27 Mar 88 00:22:18 GMT References: <512@ecrcvax.UUCP> <768@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> <5348@utah-cs.UUCP> <488@dcl-csvax.comp.lancs.ac.uk> <822@cresswell.quintus.UUCP> Sender: news@utah-cs.UUCP Reply-To: shebs%defun.utah.edu.UUCP@utah-cs.UUCP (Stanley T. Shebs) Organization: PASS Research Group Lines: 16 Keywords: bignums, vectors, lists