At 12:58 AM +0100 1/31/03, Fredrik Lundh wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
>> >Oh? Guido seems to disagree with you.
>>
>> That's fine. Guido and I have a different set of skills. It's not
>> that tough with the right set.
>
>you mean you've finished Parrot, and you have a working Python
>compiler for it? can we see some benchmarks, please?
It's not done yet, no. Doesn't mean that it isn't sufficiently
complete to draw some conclusions, and we do have a working
cross-platform JIT, which is the part that has the most direct
bearing on the original subject of this little firestorm. Native code
compilation isn't difficult, nor is expecting a gain of at least 20%
unreasonable over straight interpretation. (Expecting a factor of
10-12 speedup not unreasonable in some circumstances) Ignoring
parrot, I'll point you at some of the Scheme and Smalltalk setups.
(Andyou'd be hard-pressed to find something to beat smalltalk for
runtime dynamism)
If you want to bet, I'll put up $10 and a round of beer (or other
beverage of your choice) at OSCON 2004 for all the python labs & zope
folks that says parrot beats the current python interpreter when
running all the python benchmark suite programs (that don't depend on
extensions written in C, since we're shooting for pure engine
performance) from bytecode. Game?
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
dan@sidhe.org have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4