Re: Acceptable speeds (was Re: TIL redux (was Re: What will the Perl6 code name be?))

[Dan Sugalski]

At 12:54 AM 10/24/00 -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> >>>>> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>   DS> So unless we come up with something concrete, the goals are:
>
>   DS> 1) A nebulous ~10% faster
>   DS> 2) Faster in the things that annoy Dan the most
>   DS> 3) Faster in the OO bits the folks upstairs from me use
>
>4. faster internal and language level I/O (of course driven by AIO. :)
>5. faster startup via bytecode and/or TIL
>6. Quantum::Superposition::ForReal

Those are implementation details, not performance targets. If perl would 
run faster if I hopped up and down on one foot I would. :)

>another TIL win is no compile phase and not even a bytecode intepreter
>startup phase.

Nope, that's not a win, because it can't happen. There needs to be an 
intermediate representation that can be run through an optimizer. The 
output of the optimizer could then be turned into TIL code or run through 
an IR->interpreter stuff translator. (Or Java bytecode, or .NET code, or 
whatever) Any way you go there's a compile phase.

>TIL code is executed directly and the script is now a
>true binary. reverse compilation is still easy due to the template
>nature of the generated code.

Gack. No way. We will *not* use decompilation of machine language code as a 
way to spit out perl source. That's just evil and a waste--we're better off 
not throwing out the info on the source in the first place.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk