Re: dylan revival

[Jeffrey Siegal <address@hidden>]

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> 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.

Sure, except that doesn't satisfy the stated goal of "a simple and 
lightweight [d2c] compiler."  A similar possibilty would be to compile 
to either byte codes or Java source and use a highly optimizing native 
Java compiler.