On 09/07/01 Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >The only optimizations that interpreter had, were computed goto and
> >allocating the eval stack with alloca() instead of malloc().
>
> Doesn't this really get in the way of threading? You'll chew up great gobs
> of system stack, and that's a scarce resource when running with threads.
The number of entries in the eval stack is bounded, I've never seen it
grow past 13.
> >I think they worked also on outputting IL bytecode...
>
> Yep, but that version was slower. Dick Hardt snagged me at TPC this year (I
> think I spent most of my non-speaking time being pinned to a table or bench
> by folks with Things To Say... :) and made a .NET pitch. They were going
> with the translation to .net but switched to embedding perl. It was a lot
> faster. (Brad Kuhn had a paper on translating perl to java bytecode and he
> had lots of trouble, but for different reasons)
My point is that using their experience, a few changes should be designed to
better support dynamic languages in the CLR in the same way that currently
the research is focused on extending it for functional languages, generics
etc.
lupus
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] debian/rules
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Monkeys do it better
