A lot of strange assumptions there..
First, "all languages that do not compile to native machine code
have some overhead"
As opposed to JIT compiled languages that can take stuff into
account discovered at runtime, which a static compilation cant?
Having a jit compiler can improve cache coherency for you, which is
tedious to do otherwise, among other things.
Static compilers have had 20+ years headstart on research, which
makes jit compilers downright impressive to me.
The fact that -one- person (mike pall) alone can produce a jit
compiler that takes a relatively 'simple' language like lua,
and push it to the levels he has, says alot too.
Seriously, which compiler do you think will be more prevalent in
say, 5-10 years time, when research -really- catches up?
Second, "any slight overhead is multiplied a huge number of times"
That's just weird and strange, and begs for a description of what
you think "huge" means, and where that multiplication comes from?
On 2010-10-13 15:32, HyperHacker wrote:
For anyone interested, I've been using a patch that adds bit
operators and an integer type, which works more or less
transparently. It's from the wiki, with some fixes and tweaks;
never got around to posting it but if anyone wants, just ask. C
libraries do have to be recompiled with the modified headers as
it doesn't look feasible to add the new type to the end of the
enum due to some assumptions Lua makes about its ordering.
As for implementing complex operations such as FFT: all
languages that do not compile to native machine code have some
overhead, and in these situations any slight overhead is
multiplied a huge number of times. Whether Lua without JIT has
enough overhead to make such operations unusably slow can only
be determined by implementing it and seeing - and then you've
already implemented it, so whether it's slow or not, you may as
well release it for anyone who might still want it.
Apologies if this reply ends up at the top. My new phone isn't
making it clear where my text will go.
On 2010-10-13 7:18 AM, "KHMan" <keinhong@gmail.com>
wrote:
On 10/13/2010 8:52 PM, Bogdan Marinescu wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Enrico Colombini
wrote:
>>
>> On 13/10/2010 14.12, KHMan wrote...
I agree with that. If there is a lot of bit ops, I think there
is a good case to bite the bullet and use bitwise operators. I
would want that too on an embedded system.
--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
|
