At 08:25 PM 10/3/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 02:38:01PM -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > At 06:42 PM 10/3/00 +0100, Nicholas Clark wrote:
> > >But I seem to remember someone who should know (Tom Christiansen?) at
> > >YAPC::Europe being confident that bytecode would never be faster.
> >
> > Really? I think we shall have to prove him wrong. (And not by slowing down
> > the parsing, either--that's cheating...)
>
>I had some ideas about making bytecode (Well the current bytecode) denser
>(certainly in the sense of more compact, if not some of the other
>connotations) but there's still far too much I don't understand about the
>current backend (and via its tentacles, everything as far as the op tree)
>and I keep finding ways to break it. (which I try to fix before getting
>any further with playing). I suspect denser==slower.
Possibly slower, and possibly not. (I wouldn't use the current bytecode
implementation's limits as a condemnation of any particular technique) It
depends on how dense, and how things are encoded, and what sorts of things
one needs to figure out on the fly.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
