50 ms·
IMO benchmarking is a way broader topic. Specifically a single fibonacci example is not a good performance indicator by any means. For instance let's assume V
by koral 6y ago
IMO benchmarking is a way broader topic.
Specifically a single fibonacci example is not a good performance indicator by any means.
For instance let's assume V8 is faster in average at running this kind of nanobenchmarks (probably at least for now it is), but how much does it cost to convert non trivial data structures from Lisp to JS and back in a real case?
I expect there will be a lot of back and forward if the system if JS and Lisp get mixed and have to cooperate.
How much does it cost to go through foreign functions calls?
This are just initial thoughts that are not accounted at all here.
And even benchmarking nano-benchmarks can be surprisingly tricky ;) :) https://github.com/emacs-ng/emacs-ng/issues/187#issuecomment-802637690 https://github.com/emacs-ng/emacs-ng/issues/187#issuecomment...
- hvis 6y agoSure. My questions here are about whether these results indicate further optimization potential for native-comp (in the default configuration, hopefully). emacs-ng is an interesting experiment, but I think I will only be able to seriously consider it if it comes to reimplementing the Elisp VM on top of V8. Then it will be a single runtime, and little to no data structure conversion and FFI will be required. In the meantime, I'll keep following the native-comp progress ;), as well as dreaming of Web Workers in stock Elisp API.