# Re: PicoLisp and eval.

```
```
```Concerning the benchmarks itself, however, I'm afraid it measures
integer arithmetics rather than the overhead of 'eval'.
```

```
You're right, these numbers are synthetic.  However,
if one wants to analyze the data further, that's why
I wrote these four benchmarks:

(1): Loop + normal code
(2): Loop + quoted code
(3): Loop + evaled quoted code
(4): Loop + normal code + trivial eval

where (3) really matters, and others are control.
So, one can eliminate Loop and define

(5) normal code                - quoted code  = (1)-(2)
(6) evaled quoted code         - quoted code  = (3)-(2)
(7) normal code + trivial eval - qouted code =  (4)-(2)

Absolute eval + quote overhead = (6)-(5) = (3)-(1).
Relative eval + quote overhead = ((6)-(5))/(5)
= ((3)-(1))/((1)-(2))

For example,

Absolute overhead is 0.011,  11.951, and 300.316
Relative overhead is 11%,   170 728%,    11 726%

in Pico, SBCL, Clojure respectively.
For that particular example of code.

--
UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe
```