For larger patterns, the staged version is actually significantly faster: https://gist.github.com/jamii/6597235
On 17 September 2013 16:29, Jamie Brandon <ja...@scattered-thoughts.net> wrote: > I ran a little benchmark comparing different implementations of a toy > pattern matching protocol: > > https://gist.github.com/jamii/6595850 > > I'm surprised to find that the staged version is not significantly > slower than the compiled version. Now I'm wondering whether this is > feasible on a larger scale. Can I always rely on those fns being > inlined? Is there some magic threshold on closure nesting where > suddenly there will be inlining and I will blow up my stack? > > More generally, how can I find out this sort of thing? There seems to > be very little hard information on what optimisations hotspot will > reliably perform. > > This looks like it could be useful - > http://mechanical-sympathy.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/printing-generated-assembly-code-from.html > - but I'm not sure how I would make that work with clojures class name > mangling for closures. -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
