Re: Fun-O Basic Edition Compiler

["Scott McKay" <address@hidden>]

"Carl Gay" <carlgay@mediaone.net> wrote in message
3C29DECF.8C2234C7@mediaone.net">news:3C29DECF.8C2234C7@mediaone.net...

>
> New numbers after adding a return type decl to the Dylan
> code:
>
> FunDev   Lispworks   Java
> 8.343s   6.8s        4.297s
> 1.0      1.2x        1.9x

OK, I suspected as much.  I tried it, too, and got the same nearly
2x improvement you see.

Now I'll bet that the 2x difference is because FD has to untag/tag the
integers on function entry/return.  Does FD have a disassembler we
can use to verify this?

I don't know what LW is doing differently, but the fact is that LW is
a *much* more mature product, so I'm not too surprised that it does
a better job.  Good Lisp compilers are good.

Try one more experiment -- use 'Integer' instead of 'int' in Java to
see what the overhead of using a "real" object is.  I'll bet it's slow.