3 ms·

I'd like to see that too. In JRuby, we may be able to get Ruby-to-Ruby calls to perform as well as Java calls, which would at least get that bottleneck out of t

by headius 16y ago

I'd like to see that too. In JRuby, we may be able to get Ruby-to-Ruby calls to perform as well as Java calls, which would at least get that bottleneck out of the way. The remaining performance issues, however, are usually the rate at which objects can be allocated. In order to reduce that we may need a little JVM help (escape analysis that works well enough to actually eliminate allocations) and we may start to explore optional static typing, to allow really reducing numeric operations to raw primitive math. At this point, we realize that sometimes you really do need native performance, and we're not taking any options off the table to get there.

messel 16y ago
Charles, is there any chance virtual machines, JIT compilers can get "smart enough" to introduce native typing without requiring a hard decision by a developer. I'd prefer not to have to worry about types ever, and let the interpreter/compiler/optimizer slap them onto objects as needed to really crank numeric throughput. Maybe I could tune software with profiling tools after the fact. But it feels like as soon as you start locking specific objects down it's a slippery slope. I'm not very familiar with the depth you've gone to, but can a dynamic object have numeric features or be capable of substituting numeric handling for a limited time (virtual numerics) and then revert back to a sloppy untyped object?