Advertisement

On Using Common Lisp for Scientific Computing

  • Nicolas Neuss
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computational Science and Engineering book series (LNCSE, volume 35)

Abstract

Lisp is a very flexible and powerful language, but up to now it has not been used intensively for applications in scientific computing. The main reason is the prejudice that Lisp is slow. While this prejudice may have been true in early stages of Lisp’s history, it is not really true today. Furthermore, the virtues of Lisp are becoming more and more important. In this contribution, we support this point of view: first, by comparing the efficiency of BLAS routines written in C and Common Lisp and second, by discussing the recently developed toolbox FEMLISP for solving partial differential equations with finite element methods and multigrid.

Keywords

Scientific Computing Machine Code Type Declaration Common Lisp Algebraic Multigrid Method 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. E. Bank. PLTMG: A Software Package for Solving Elliptic Partial Differential Equations — Users’ Guide 7.0, volume 15 of Frontiers in Applied Mathematics. SIAM Books, Philadelphia, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Bastian, K. Birken, K. Johannsen, S. Lang, N. Neuss, H. Rentz-Reichert, and C. Wieners. UG — a flexible software toolbox for solving partial differential equations. Comput. Visual. Sci., 1:27–40, 1997.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. C. Brenner and L. R. Scott. The Mathematical Theory of Finite Element Methods. Texts in Applied Mathematics. Springer—Verlag, New York, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CMUCL. Homepage.http://www.cons.org/cmucl.
  5. 5.
    J. J. Dongarra. Performance of various computers using standard linear equations software. Technical report, Computer Science Department, University of Tennessee, 1998.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Fateman, K. A. Broughan, D. K. Willcock, and D. Rettig. Fast floating-point processing with Common Lisp. ACM Trans. on Math. Software, 21:26–62, 1995.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    I. Joyner. A critique of C++ and Programming and Language Trends of the 1990s. http://www.literateprogramming.com/c++critique.pdf,1996.
  8. 8.
    C. Lawson, R. Hanson, D. Kincaid, and F. Krogh. Basic linear algbra subprograms for Fortran usage. ACM Trans. Math. Softw., 5:308–323, 1979.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maxima. Homepage. http://sourceforge.net/`maxima.
  10. 10.
    N. Neuss. http://www.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de/“Nicolas.Neuss.
  11. 11.
    N. Neuss. A new sparse matrix storage method for adaptive solving of large systems of reaction-diffusion-transport equations. Computing, 68,1:19–36, 2002.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    N. Neuss. Femlisp a multi-purpose tool for solving partial differential equa-tions. Comput. Vis. Sci., (submitted).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    F. Sergeraert. Common Lisp, Typing, and Mathematics. Satellite talk at the EACA Congress in Ezcaray, 2001.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicolas Neuss
    • 1
  1. 1.Interdisziplinäres Zentrum für wissenschaftliches Rechnen (IWR)Universität HeidelbergHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations