> A branch is certainly a possibility. But from what I've heard, the primary > benefit of invokedynamic is convenience for language implementors. The > performance benefits, if any, are modest.
If your language is doing dynamic dispatch a lot, invokedynamic can be game-changing since suddenly the JIT has the potential to optimize in ways similar to invokevirtual. As far as I know, the main issue with clojure is that it is not heavy on dynamic dispatch. Regular function calls and protocols don't benefit from invokedynamic I think, so the performance benefit would seem to be less than for something like groovy/ruby/python/etc. If you're doing normal invokevirtual/invokestatic calls on types of known type, and the performance impact is coming from things like boxing and the fundamental nature of the data structures, I don't believe invokedynamic will be expected to help much in the general case (but I am certainly no expert here). Would not multimethods be the main candidate for invokedynamic? -- / Peter Schuller -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
