Re: Performance assistance / advice
"Tahoma Toelkes (as tahoma_toelkes at yahoo dot com)" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.lispworks.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The interface for every language to the machine is assembly language, so that's a rather queer dodge since a Lisp with an assembly interface can take advantage of unsupported features just as C can. Regardless, I do agree that processor companies don't typically get economically involved in whether Lisp implementations can compile to them, which really is wholly appropriate given that there are terribly few bare metal Lisp runtimes/applications that have ever gained any popularity, to the best of my knowledge. -- Tahoma > On Mar 13, 2025, at 6:58 AM, Tim Bradshaw <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 12 Mar 2025, at 16:14, Tahoma Toelkes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> As someone who has made a career of programming the metal in C, this statement really hasn't been true up until this point, so I'm perplexed why you think it would be true in the future. C simply gets around this problem by having a lightweight interface to produce inline non-portable native assembly instructions. > > I don't think you read what I wrote: I wrote 'every new feature of a processor will absolutely have an interface to it which can be used from C'. That interface might be implemented in assembly or anything else, but there will be a lightweight way of using it from C. Which is, in fact, true, as you said. > > I have worked for companies that design processors. They had a C compiler team who worked on gcc and LLVM, and an overlapping team who worked on V8. They did not have a Lisp team. > > --tim _______________________________________________ Lisp Hug - the mailing list for LispWorks users [email protected] http://www.lispworks.com/support/lisp-hug.html