Nicolas Neuss wrote:
> Very well put! I'm just getting accustomed to this factor 3:-). A factor
> from 1 upto 2 is due to the compiler backend. And there is another slowing
> down due to goodies like dynamic typing and GC, so that we probably have to
> accept this factor 3 for large applications.
There's no reason the compiler backend couldn't be just as good
as any other compiler's, except perhaps finite developer time.
What would be most useful in improving CMUCL's code generator?
Dynamic typing overhead can be made to go away on hot paths
using type declarations (and perhaps some code duplication).
GC is being used in other languages now anyway (example: gcc,
and in java), and Lisp's gc is arguably more mature.
Boxing/unboxing might be a larger cost, as well as slowness of
CLOS.
Paul
