I'm not committed to the JIT, by any means. Lua is the what I'd have
evolved Marpa::R2 semantics into, or at least what I'd have done if I
was as smart as Roberto, and I can always fall back on Lua. They're
compatible -- the LuaJIT team is more committed to backward Lua
compatibility than Lua's own development team is. So as long as I code
to Lua 5.1, it's just a matter of linking to a different shared
library. And JIT or no JIT, Lua looks like the way to go.
-- jeffrey
On 07/29/2014 01:09 PM, Christopher Layne wrote:
I'm not going to lie. The prospect of Lua vs the existing C/XS
implementation has me worrying in ways for the same reasons Java and
JIT complexity make me worry in general (too much complexity). I do
understand where you're coming from, implementation-wise of libmarpa,
but quite simply, is it slower or faster than R2? I do understand the
concern of "it feels like I'm developing something here that has
already been developed" - however, consider the *curve* of that
development. You may have 22 ops, but do you expect a 100? Is the
creation of a mini-VM a symptom rather than a solution; e.g. symptom
of slow callbacks. BTW: On a whim, I converted all of the action
callbacks in one of my Marpa::R2 grammar's to be entirely XS
implementations. They were simple callbacks, which you've already
seen, but the overall performance difference? Less than 5-10%. I
credit this to Marpa's own internal implementation carrying most of
the efficiency. Remember: is the mini-vm a symptom or a real solution
for a problem? -cl
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "marpa
parser" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
