[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: dylan revival
- To: address@hidden
- Subject: Re: dylan revival
- From: Bruce Hoult <address@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 10:15:01 -0500
- Organization: TelstraClear
- References: <200204032101.QAA11783@life.ai.mit.edu> <bruce-9D8DB7.19492904042002@copper.ipg.tsnz.net> <3CAC180B.6070004@quiotix.com>
- Sender: "Gregory T. Sullivan" <address@hidden>
- User-agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
- Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:14102
In article <3CAC180B.6070004@quiotix.com>,
Jeffrey Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:
> Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > A simple and lightweight Dylan-to-C compiler is possible, but wouldn't
> > be worth it because the code wouldn't perform any better than with an
> > interpreter.
>
> With a very good C compiler, you might still be able to get good
> performance (better than an interpreter, at least). GCC is probably not
> good enough though; you'd need something with stronger interprocedural
> optimization.
I suspect (totally without evidence) you'd be better of compiling to
Java bytecodes and using HotSpot.
-- Bruce