At 2:07 pm +0200 24/5/00, Artur Zawlocki wrote:
>Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk wrote:
>>
>> Wed, 24 May 2000 01:24:57 -0700, Simon Peyton-Jones
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pisze:
>>
>> > Performance will not be great. More like Hugs than GHC.
>>
>> Is this because of lack of optimization, or is it inherent in using
>> Java bytecode?
>
>I guess the poor performance results from representing heap objects
>(closures in the STG-machine, graph nodes in the G-machine etc.) as java
>classes. Class instance initialisation seems to be rather heavy-weight
>operation in the JVM.
It's currently got a lot more to do with lack of optimization (we
don't really do any) than the overhead of Java per se - though we do
generate a lot of instances! After the code is tidied up (from
correct but dumb to [hopefully :-)] correct and smart) we will have a
better idea of the JVM overhead - but it will certainly never be
zero. However JVM's are getting better...
For a simple multithreaded graphic application (animated dining
philisophers with sound - available from Sun's website I think)
comparing Java to Mondrian we currently produce a lot more code, take
longer to start up, but then you can't tell the difference between
the two versions.
Cheers,
Nigel
--
--
Nigel Perry, New Zealand
