[Ecls-list] About the myth of slow starting

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll
<juanjose.garciaripoll at googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Stas Boukarev <stassats at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > https://sourceforge.net/news/?group_id=30035&id=287636
>> SBCL has quite a large core, so unless it's cached by FS loading it
>> isn't so fast.
>> With caches dropped (echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches) ECL is actually
>>  faster than SBCL at start.
>
> Indeed, this is normally my experience in OS X, but I did not want to offer
> the "best" or "biased" numbers. Instead I just took a system where SBCL has
> to perform well (Linux) and ECL does not do so bad.

I agree with that:  many interested ECL users do not have the luxury of fiddling
around with the kernel parameters.  So, the normal conditions of good ECL
performance should not require that -- and I applaud that view.

-- Gaby