2 ms·

Is there any direct comparison though? Because it can be alternatively argued that these dynamic languages needed new JIT techniques for performance, but they e

Is there any direct comparison though? Because it can be alternatively argued that these dynamic languages needed new JIT techniques for performance, but they especially work well for more constrained languages like JS. I don't think Smalltalk was ever a good fit for number crunching, for example.

pjmlp 3y ago
Better than CPython, regardless of how you put it. EDIT: Also to note, those languages powered whole graphical single workstations, with microcoded CPUs + JIT. "Efficient implementation of the smalltalk-80 system" https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/800017.800542 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/800017.800542 https://computerhistory.org/blog/introducing-the-smalltalk-zoo-48-years-of-smalltalk-history-at-chm/ https://computerhistory.org/blog/introducing-the-smalltalk-z... "Self-Confidence: How SELF Became a High-Performance Language" https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs6120/2020fa/blog/self/ https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs6120/2020fa/blog/self/
- igouy 3y ago
  vs CPython https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/vw-python3.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... vs Node https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/smalltalk.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
  - lifthrasiir 3y ago
    Exactly. Comparing with CPython is too easy and arguably unfair, Smalltalk should be compared with JS instead and I think it has no chance in that setting.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Why should it be compared? We are not comparing Smalltalk JITs to Javascript JITs. The whole point of this conversation is CPython refusing to add one, and the lame excuses regarding its dynamic capabilities, when more dynamic languages have had a JIT for decades.
      - lifthrasiir 3y ago
        First, because CPython had more concerns than what Smalltalk implementations have, so such comparison would be unfair to Python. (See my topmost comment for example.) Second, my question was about the possibility that Smalltalk and others were unbearably slow without JIT, so JIT was not a matter of choice for them. I'm not aware of Smalltalk implementations that don't have JIT, so it would be easier to compare Smalltalk with another well-optimized JIT implementation instead---in this case JS.
        whizzter 3y ago
        Not much in the Python language is categorically worse than features within JS when it comes to JIT creation. My thesis work was on AOT JS compilation, in it I refer to a bunch of experimental Python runtimes, Self,etc and the main issues in all these papers were basically the of same kind. Heck, even PyPy exists and iirc when it comes to the core language is almost entirely compatible (except for code that relies on ref-counting semantics but that code should apparently big fixed anyhow). https://www.pypy.org/compat.html https://www.pypy.org/compat.html The real summary is: CPython is a turd in many ways, the old C api holds it back and the community hasn't put the effort into using cross-implementation compatible C-bindings instead making PyPy or others a second class citizen.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    CPython is the one being compared here, and besides Pharo, better use an industrial strength one, like Cincom Smalltalk.
    - igouy 3y ago
      Cincom Smalltalk is the one being compared.
igouy 3y ago
So if one was "Prototyping a Real-Time Embedded System in Smalltalk" one might 'improve frequently invoked methods by recoding, possibly as “primitive” functions in a lower level language such as C or assembler'. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/74878.74904 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/74878.74904
- pjmlp 3y ago
  CPython is up to date with one specific Smalltalk implementation in 1987, when an ESP32 has better hardware resources than those systems, what a great achievement!
  - igouy 3y ago
    One way Smalltalk was made a better fit for number crunching: primitives.

pjmlp 3y ago

Better than CPython, regardless of how you put it. EDIT: Also to note, those languages powered whole graphical single workstations, with microcoded CPUs + JIT. "Efficient implementation of the smalltalk-80 system" https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/800017.800542 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/800017.800542 https://computerhistory.org/blog/introducing-the-smalltalk-zoo-48-years-of-smalltalk-history-at-chm/ https://computerhistory.org/blog/introducing-the-smalltalk-z... "Self-Confidence: How SELF Became a High-Performance Language" https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs6120/2020fa/blog/self/ https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs6120/2020fa/blog/self/

igouy 3y ago
vs CPython https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/vw-python3.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... vs Node https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/smalltalk.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
- lifthrasiir 3y ago
  Exactly. Comparing with CPython is too easy and arguably unfair, Smalltalk should be compared with JS instead and I think it has no chance in that setting.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Why should it be compared? We are not comparing Smalltalk JITs to Javascript JITs. The whole point of this conversation is CPython refusing to add one, and the lame excuses regarding its dynamic capabilities, when more dynamic languages have had a JIT for decades.
    - lifthrasiir 3y ago
      First, because CPython had more concerns than what Smalltalk implementations have, so such comparison would be unfair to Python. (See my topmost comment for example.) Second, my question was about the possibility that Smalltalk and others were unbearably slow without JIT, so JIT was not a matter of choice for them. I'm not aware of Smalltalk implementations that don't have JIT, so it would be easier to compare Smalltalk with another well-optimized JIT implementation instead---in this case JS.
      - whizzter 3y ago
        Not much in the Python language is categorically worse than features within JS when it comes to JIT creation. My thesis work was on AOT JS compilation, in it I refer to a bunch of experimental Python runtimes, Self,etc and the main issues in all these papers were basically the of same kind. Heck, even PyPy exists and iirc when it comes to the core language is almost entirely compatible (except for code that relies on ref-counting semantics but that code should apparently big fixed anyhow). https://www.pypy.org/compat.html https://www.pypy.org/compat.html The real summary is: CPython is a turd in many ways, the old C api holds it back and the community hasn't put the effort into using cross-implementation compatible C-bindings instead making PyPy or others a second class citizen.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  CPython is the one being compared here, and besides Pharo, better use an industrial strength one, like Cincom Smalltalk.
  - igouy 3y ago
    Cincom Smalltalk is the one being compared.

igouy 3y ago

So if one was "Prototyping a Real-Time Embedded System in Smalltalk" one might 'improve frequently invoked methods by recoding, possibly as “primitive” functions in a lower level language such as C or assembler'. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/74878.74904 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/74878.74904

pjmlp 3y ago
CPython is up to date with one specific Smalltalk implementation in 1987, when an ESP32 has better hardware resources than those systems, what a great achievement!
- igouy 3y ago
  One way Smalltalk was made a better fit for number crunching: primitives.