3 ms·
>Despite claims of JIT compilation, automatic parallelism My experience with repeatedly seeing claims like this in different contexts is that I'm not sure they
by codewright 14y ago
>Despite claims of JIT compilation, automatic parallelism
My experience with repeatedly seeing claims like this in different contexts is that I'm not sure they've ever exceeded the performance of static binaries in pretty much anything.
They used to claim it for Lisp, then Java. I'm done waiting, I'd rather just use something I know can be made fast than hoping the PyPy guys do magic.
- pnathan 14y agoYou should be aware that Steel Bank Common Lisp is, in many cases on Ye Old Shootout, close to static binary performance. Certain blog posts from some of the community record results that have beaten C++ results. (Numerical performance, as I recall, but don't quote me). My point is that in certain scenarios where you need performance but aren't willing to pay the C++ grief, you can get away with better languages without significantly sacrificing.
- codewright 14y agoA few points of order: 1. My first high-level language was Common Lisp (clisp). >My point is that in certain scenarios where you need performance but aren't willing to pay the C++ grief, you can get away with better languages without significantly sacrificing. 2. And? I expressly said that when you need to be able to squeeze every last ounce and have total control over the behavior of the program and that's when this discussion became relevant. Close only counts in hand grenades and horseshoes. I'm talking about systems work.