On 04/01/2014, at 9:31 PM, srean wrote: > What worries me a little bit is that sheer magnitude of improvement that is > required in compile times and that the back end is C++, a language not really > well suited for fast compilation, although flxg may be wired to output code > that is easy on the C++ compiler. Thats a lot of work for you :)
Well I don't know that. It would actually require doing some testing and experiments with performance measurements. For example splitting the output into separately compiled units for every function may be faster or slower, depending perhaps on whether we can organise pre-compiled headers. I just don't know. however don't forget, for "scripting language" performance we hardly need to worry about C++ optimisation, we could use -O0. That's actually pretty fast. > > I'm loathe to compete with compiled > languages like Haskell or Ocaml. As compiled languages they're just better. > > Felix comfortably beats Ocaml in benchmarks You have some benchmarks? -- john skaller skal...@users.sourceforge.net http://felix-lang.org ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their revenue. With AppDynamics, you get 100% visibility into your Java,.NET, & PHP application. Start your 15-day FREE TRIAL of AppDynamics Pro! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=84349831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Felix-language mailing list Felix-language@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/felix-language
