Have you read your PFDS today?

Purely Functional Data Structures
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rwh/theses/okasaki.pdf

When a C programmer needs an efficient data structure for a particular problem, he or she can often simply look one up in any of a number of good textbooks or handbooks. Unfortunately, programmers in functional languages such as Standard ML or Haskell do not have this luxury. Although some data structures designed for imperative languages such as C can be quite easily adapted to a functional setting, most cannot, usually because they depend in crucial ways on assignments, which are disallowed, or at least discouraged, in functional languages. To address this imbalance, we describe several techniques for designing functional data structures, and numerous original data structures based on these techniques, including multiple variations of lists, queues, double-ended queues, and heaps, many supporting more exotic features such as random access or efficient catenation.

In addition, we expose the fundamental role of lazy evaluation in amortized functional data structures. Traditional methods of amortization break down when old versions of a data structure, not just the most recent, are available for further processing. This property is known as persistence, and is taken for granted in functional languages. On the surface, persistence and amortization appear to be incompatible, but we show how lazy evaluation can be used to resolve this conflict, yielding amortized data structures that are efficient even when used persistently. Turning this relationship between lazy evaluation and amortization around, the notion of amortization also provides the first practical techniques for analyzing the time requirements of non-trivial lazy programs.
 
Finally, our data structures offer numerous hints to programming language designers, illustrating the utility of combining strict and lazy evaluation in a single language, and providing non-trivial examples using polymorphic recursion and higher-order, recursive modules.

>>68
Stop talking to me like I'm a C stack boy. You have no idea who you're talking to kid. I've been matching parens since before you were born.

But inlining asm fits the spirit of lisp. Why shouldn't I be able to write a loop macro that can translate a certain class of expressions into SIMD instructions, and use lisp itself to do the translation. It's perfectly built for it.

MOP

Overengineered crap. Thanks for reminding me why I've abandoned all known lisp implementations.

>>69

At the level you appear to be working, there is no reason to use anything other than lisp, as >>34 says. It's a traceable tower of abstraction from macros down to asm if you write it to be -- and yes, you can write the whole thing yourself without relying on someone else's code generator.

Lisp implementations today don't produce programs that can be separated from their expensive runtime environments.

and GC or otherwise is just a detail of implementation of the underlying system.

An underlying detail that makes it run slower than it needs to be. Using such a flexible interface at runtime is convenient but it's never optimal. With compiler time abstractions you can get optimality while still maintaining a simple model of how the program works in source form. GC is the lazy way out and its results show.