3 ms·
Well, that's a good point, really. The JVM and the CLR do run many (dynamic) languages quite efficiently. On the other hand, that is in no small part due to the
by brrt 12y ago
Well, that's a good point, really. The JVM and the CLR do run many (dynamic) languages quite efficiently. On the other hand, that is in no small part due to the man-centuries spent trying to optimise both the JVM JIT and the language-to-JVM compiler.
And as a counter-example, luajit2 was built by one man (mostly) over the course of a few years, and runs very efficiently indeed, in no small part due to the lua-specific choices that have been made.
So what I'm trying to say is that there is a second tradeoff, somewhere between programmer efficiency, runtime efficiency, and running time, and that MoarVM is making a better tradeoff for perl6 than parrot is.
- themgt 12y agoThanks, I think this basic "you go to code with the developer resources you have, not the developer resources you might want or wish to have at a later time" is desperately under-appreciated in software architecture
- chromatic 12y agoyou go to code with the developer resources you have, not the developer resources you might want or wish to have at a later time Ha! My experience with Rakudo was "you go to the developer resources you have, tell them not to change anything, then tell them you're going to throw away their work in favor of something you haven't written yet" and then complain when they leave.