On 5/1/08, Jochen Theodorou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter schrieb:
Jochen Theodorou wrote:
[...]
ok, let me try to explain what I think of... The current system in
Groovy works like this: you have a narrow API, with some core that
actually selects and executes the
John Wilson schrieb:
On 5/1/08, Jochen Theodorou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter schrieb:
Jochen Theodorou wrote:
[...]
ok, let me try to explain what I think of... The current system in
Groovy works like this: you have a narrow API, with some core that
actually selects
Charles Oliver Nutter schrieb:
[...]
- JRuby currently doesn't do multihosting using the classloader
hierarchy; instead, we have a simple org.jruby.Ruby object that
represents a given runtime. This means we pass Ruby through most stacks
to get at things like Fixnum caches. Statics are most
John Rose wrote:
Or (I don't know if it could be made to work, but it's worth thinking
about) method handles could interoperate more tightly with closures, by
having each individual method handle somehow take on the appropriate
function interface type.
I think this could lead to some kind
Charles Oliver Nutter a écrit :
John Rose wrote:
Or (I don't know if it could be made to work, but it's worth thinking
about) method handles could interoperate more tightly with closures, by
having each individual method handle somehow take on the appropriate
function interface type.
Attila Szegedi schrieb:
On 2008.04.30., at 11:49, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
Rich Hickey schrieb:
On Apr 29, 5:36 pm, Jochen Theodorou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I think the answer is tags, as John Rose discussed here:
http://blogs.sun.com/jrose/entry/fixnums_in_the_vm
That, standard
On 4/30/08, Attila Szegedi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008.04.30., at 11:49, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
Rich Hickey schrieb:
On Apr 29, 5:36 pm, Jochen Theodorou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
I think the answer is tags, as John Rose discussed here:
On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:37 AM, John Wilson wrote:
On 4/30/08, Attila Szegedi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2008.04.30., at 11:49, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
I don't see how this will help me in Groovy. We use the Java
types, so
there is no need to represent a 20 bit integer.
It doesn't help
On 2008.04.30., at 20:59, John Rose wrote:
On Apr 30, 2008, at 6:37 AM, John Wilson wrote:
I'm rather unsure about the value of making changes like this to the
JVM. The timescale from now to when they become useable is rather
long
(2-3 years to get into a released JVM then another 2-3
Jochen Theodorou wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter schrieb:
[...]
I see... maybe the JRuby problem is just very different from the Groovy
problem here
Well, not really...you box all arguments in arrays too, and you're
paying a cost for that. Whether that cost is measurable in the face of
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Jochen Theodorou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wanted to collect a bit data to how you avoid boxing in your language
implementations.
My language provides bignums and flonums, which I simply represent as
BigIntegers and Doubles. I pay the boxing penalty, but
A few JRuby techniques to reduce argument boxing:
* We have specific-arity call paths for up to three arguments and with
or without a block. The compiler calls one of those when it can do so,
and calls the default [] version otherwise. This means that from the
call site down, there's 10 paths
John Cowan schrieb:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Jochen Theodorou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wanted to collect a bit data to how you avoid boxing in your language
implementations.
My language provides bignums and flonums, which I simply represent as
BigIntegers and Doubles. I pay
Jochen Theodorou schrieb:
[...]
well in case of adding two ints I get numbers telling me the factor is
more 20, then 2.5.
I take that back, I overlooked a decimal... so it is more like 200 than
2.5 here. At last with jdk 1.6 and standard BigInteger. That also means
it is much worse than
Charles Oliver Nutter schrieb:
A few JRuby techniques to reduce argument boxing:
* We have specific-arity call paths for up to three arguments and with
or without a block. The compiler calls one of those when it can do so,
and calls the default [] version otherwise. This means that from
On Apr 29, 5:36 pm, Jochen Theodorou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
I wanted to collect a bit data to how you avoid boxing in your language
implementations. I am asking because currently Groovy makes lots of
calls via Reflection, and that means creating for each call an Object[],
16 matches
Mail list logo
