Advertisement

Memory performance of Lisp and Prolog programs

  • Evan Tick
Session 7a: Compilation
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 225)

Abstract

A comparison between a Lisp and Prolog architecture based on memory performance is presented. Four Lisp programs were translated into Common Lisp and Prolog abstract machine instruction sets. The translated programs were emulated and memory reference counts collected. Memory usage statistics indicate how the two languages do fundamental computations in different ways with varying efficiency. Additional measurements of commercial systems running on a conventional host are presented.

Keywords

Memory Performance Semantic Content Choice Point Abstract Machine Prolog Program 
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.
    C. Gutierrez, “Prolog Compared With Lisp”, Symposium on LISP and Functional Programming, ACM, 1982.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. A. O'Keefe, “Prolog Compared With Lisp?”, Research Paper 181, Dept. of Artificial Intelligence, University of Edinburgh, 1982.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. P. Gabriel, “Performance and Evaluation of Lisp Systems”, Research Paper 111, Computer Science, Stanford University, 1984.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    M. L. Griss and A. C. Hearn, “A Portable LISP Compiler”, Software — Practice and Experience, Vol. 11, No. 6, June, 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. H. D. Warren, “An Abstract Prolog Instruction Set”, Tech. report 309, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International, 1983.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Tick, “Prolog Memory-Referencing Behavior”, Technical Report 85-281, Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, 1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    E. Tick, “Lisp and Prolog Memory Performance”, Technical Report 86-291, Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University, 1985.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Ponder, “"...but will RISC run LISP??" (a feasibility study)”, Research Paper 83/122, Dept. of EECS, University of California at Berkeley, 1983.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    B. Joy and S. Gadol, “Sun Common Lisp Benchmarks: Some Early Results”, Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, 1985.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    D. H. D. Warren and L. M. Pereira, “Prolog — The Language and its Implementation Compared with Lisp”, Symposium on Al and Programming Languages, ACM, August 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evan Tick
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Systems LaboratoryStanford UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations