> This discussion is increasingly weird and non-technical, mostly because there is no such thing as "Lisp". There are implementations of Common Lisp, implementations of Scheme, there is Clojure on the JVM, all of those are in the "Lisp" family. So comparing a particular language to "Lisp" makes no sense.
Since I've posted a link to Shootout comparison of Go and Common Lisp I thought I made it clear which Lisp I was talking about.
> And I don't understand the comment about things being "precompiled". So what?
It means that a descent part of the computation was done in the compile (macroexpansion) time and this time was not measured and included into the total result. This may be great for cheating Shootout benchmarks but does not fairly demonstrate the performance of the language.
Since I've posted a link to Shootout comparison of Go and Common Lisp I thought I made it clear which Lisp I was talking about.
> And I don't understand the comment about things being "precompiled". So what?
It means that a descent part of the computation was done in the compile (macroexpansion) time and this time was not measured and included into the total result. This may be great for cheating Shootout benchmarks but does not fairly demonstrate the performance of the language.