2008/4/24 Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You may like the book Compiling with continuations by Appel.
Thanks Jon. I really appreciate your whole reply. Appel's book is on
my todo list :)
I believe the designs of the JVM and (to a lesser extent) the CLR were much
more backward looking than
Steven Shaw wrote:
2008/4/24 Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You may like the book Compiling with continuations by Appel.
Thanks Jon. I really appreciate your whole reply. Appel's book is on
my todo list :)
I believe the designs of the JVM and (to a lesser extent) the CLR were much
On Friday 25 April 2008 02:05:50 hlovatt wrote:
- are you certain you are running the right benchmarks?
Yes. And I have run them on more than one machine and obtained the same
results.
I also found a bug in the SciGMark code, specifically the C++ was printing the
wrong score for the MultPoly
All, Java, C#, C, tests are on Windows XP running under Parallels on
a Mac Book Pro., 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
I also ran the large set using gcc compiled with -O3 on g++ (GCC)
3.4.5 (mingw special), the results were:
SciGMark 1.0 - C++ - specialized
Using 2.00
On 2008.04.25., at 12:54, hlovatt wrote:
All, Java, C#, C, tests are on Windows XP running under Parallels on
a Mac Book Pro., 2.33 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 2 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM.
Benchmarking under a virtualized OS? Kirk just wrote recently about
that:
2008/4/24 Steven Shaw [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So it works if you do a CPS transformation on all your code leaving
your frames on the heap. In that case you can tail call a continuation
to simulate the exception. I am interested in this approach. I like
the flexibility that CPS style gives
@John,
Your benchmarking does not seem consistent with this paper:
http://www.orcca.on.ca/~ldragan/synasc2005/2005-synasc-scigmark-final.pdf
They show Java faster than C# on most of the benchmarks in the SciMark
suite. But not the Monte Carlo simulation to calculate Pi, which is
presumably the
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 08:39:03 hlovatt wrote:
@John,
Your benchmarking does not seem consistent with this paper:
http://www.orcca.on.ca/~ldragan/synasc2005/2005-synasc-scigmark-final.pdf
They show Java faster than C# on most of the benchmarks in the SciMark
suite. But not the Monte
On Tuesday 22 April 2008 12:49:16 Antonio Cuni wrote:
Jon Harrop wrote:
You generated code that turned out to be less efficient on the CLR in
this particular case but you cannot validly generalize that to all
non-standard code.
right, I can't generalize to all non-standard code, but it's
Doing a quick benchmark on this code, I find that 10^6 iterations using your
exception-based technique gives:
CLR: 24s
JVM: 1.3s
Holy smokes, the JVM is 18x faster!
Now try the tail calls (only available on the CLR):
CLR: 0.025s
Holy smokes, the CLR is 52x faster!
Could
I suggested a language extension to Java for just this problem:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6519124
That allowed keywords to be escaped by surrounding them with an
underscore, e.g. the Java keyword class could be escaped via _class_.
You could add a similar escape
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:21 AM, hlovatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That allowed keywords to be escaped by surrounding them with an
underscore, e.g. the Java keyword class could be escaped via _class_.
And _class_ would be escaped as __class__, and so on?
--
GMail doesn't have rotating
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Brian Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
A primary goal of Fan is enable writing software which is portable
between the JVM and CLR. To give you an example, we bit off writing
our our own DateTime and TimeZone handling to ensure exact portability
b/w the
If you're in the Bay Area or are going to
be at JavaOne, maybe we can talk as well.
There may be interesting things to be done
with your work and the work we're doing with lift.
I'm hoping to get to JavaOne, in which case it would be great
to get together. There is lots of opportunity for
On Sunday 20 April 2008 14:50:25 Jon Harrop wrote:
Running the SciMark benchmark on my 32-bit WinXP Athlon64 X2 4400+ 2Gb RAM
machine:
Sun JDK 6: 385
.NET 3.5: 367
Here .NET is 5% slower than the JVM.
I hadn't actually noticed that the .NET port of SciMark was written by a Java
On Apr 19, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Rodrigo B. de Oliveira wrote:
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 5:30 PM, Brian Frank
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... I personally
think the JVM is a much better platform for alternate languages
than .NET.
Why?
My take as a JVM engineer (which is a limited but
Brian,
Fan looks interesting, but looking at the key benefits, they look like
Scala's benefits. Can you tell me the differences between Fan and Scala?
Thanks,
David
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Brian Frank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Fan is licensed under the AFL 3.0:
17 matches
Mail list logo
