Re: stats say SBCL is 78 875 % faster than natively compiled Elisp

[Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org>]

Jean Louis wrote:

>> However, compared to CL/SBCL our beloved Elisp/Emacs is
>> still just a turtle on steroids ...
>
> Emacs Lisp is not designed for mission critical applications
> such as controlling rockets in the orbit.

I don't think that's the answer - Elisp and CL should be very
close compared as two languages even in the Lisp family, so
the difference in speed should be in the compiling part of it,
as those digits exemplify.

Again, see:

  https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/fib.el

;; commands: [results]
;;   $ emacs -Q -batch -l fib.el                    [8.660 s]
;;   $ emacs -Q -batch -l fib.elc                   [3.386 s]
;;   $ emacs -Q -batch -l fib-54a44480-bad305eb.eln [3.159 s]
;;   $ sbcl -l fib.cl                               [0.004 s]
;;
;;   plain  -> byte:     +156%
;;   plain  -> native:   +174%
;;   plain  -> sbcl:  +216400%
;;
;;   byte   -> native:     +7%
;;   byte   -> sbcl:   +84550%
;;
;;   native -> sbcl:   +78875%

So my questions are still:

- Why is our native-compile/Elisp so much slower than their
  SBCL/CL?

- Why is our native-compile just 7% faster than our
  byte-compile? I is still based on the byte-model, just now
  adopted for native hardware?

- But 7% is still a good step forward, so:

(1) Is all Elisp shipped with Emacs natively compiled? [1]

(2) How do I compile all my own Elisp, optimally straight from
    a/the Makefile or still better, implicit/automated
    when/from byte-compiling? [2]

> Speed does not matter for purposes I need, like sales,
> handling people, communicating with people.

Speed always matters in computing.

>> But while I got it to work, the level of integration is
>> still below what we have with Elisp. So I thought, with the
>> native compile step, we could maybe ... but no. Need speed?
>> Use CL.
>
> I used it, I am not satisfied with it due to lack
> of integration.

I think SLIME was intended in part to bridge that gap, and to
some extent I think it succeeded, actually, given the
increased complexity one can argue it succeeded quite well,
but as for how one perceives it after being used to Elisp -
then no, it doesn't feel like that ...

[1] Installed like this:
      https://dataswamp.org/~incal/conf/.zsh/install-emacs

[2} For example:
      https://dataswamp.org/~incal/emacs-init/Makefile

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal