On 12/28/10 9:48 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
On 12/28/10 9:30 AM, Sean Kelly wrote:
Don Wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Je'rome M. Berger:
I have almost never used inline assembler even in languages that support it. Of
course, this is only a sub-point of your point 6: using inline assembly in a
language as slow as Python would be completely pointless.<
For scientific computing this is better than D inline asm:
http://www.corepy.org/
Based on a quick look at the website, that looks _extremely_ unlikely to
be true.
This seems like an extravagant claim: "CorePy. . . regularly outperforms compiled
languages for common computational tasks (as hand-coded assembly often does)." They
are talking about interpreted assembly code, correct?
It's generated during runtime and then ran straight.
Yeah, I mulled it over and figured out how this works. For long-running
sequences of code I imagine it's quite fast.
Also, it's not a contender to D's built-in inline asm. It's a library!
If D needs to generate assembler dynamically, copying CorePy's API
(which I find well thought out) is an easy proposition.
Andrei
