At 8:09 AM -0400 4/12/02, Michel J Lambert wrote:
>
>Few things immediately come to mind:
>a) with the current encoding system, we're guaranteed to be slower than
>without it. If we want Parrot to be as fast as Perl5, we're deluding
>ourselves.
I think perhaps a rewrite of life.pasm into perl with some
benchmarking would be in order before making that judgement.
>b) the results will probably be worse in more string-heavy applications,
>such as regexes, etc.
FWIW, life.pasm is about as string-heavy as you can get.
>c) there's gotta be a way to have multiple encodings without sacrificing
>that much speed
The interpreter can definitely cheat if it knows that strings are in
a fixed-width encoding. Unfortunately it can't cheat with any
character set stuff, though if we allow illegal strings to be
constructed then it doesn't matter.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
