fft1976 wrote:
> On Aug 13, 9:57 pm, Daniel Lyons <fus...@storytotell.org> wrote:
>
> > the code is open source and the techniques for adding  
> > optimizations to compilers are well known. So marshall your impulses  
> > for the good and we'll all benefit.
>
> It does seem that the optimizations Andy Fingernut did by hand are
> pretty braindead, and need to be done automatically. If I did change
> the compiler to do these, what are the chances of my improvements
> getting merged into the main tree? Otherwise, such work would be
> utterly pointless.
>

I don't think spending too much effort on the compiler at this point
is useful. It will eventually be rewritten in Clojure anyway, and Rich
has stated that he is more interested in architectural improvements
rather than an optimising compiler, for now at least.

Of course, if the optimisations really are simple to implement, I
don't think patches will be outright *rejected* if you do send them.

When it comes to Clojure/java performance comparisons, I think Clojure
code is too different from Java to be directly comparable in most
cases. And yes, I agree that getting the best performance possible is
a chore. Sure, getting an inner loop to produce the same bytecode as
the java equivalent *is* possible, but to do so on whole program level
would require writing Java in Clojure and a lot of macro trickery to
avoid boxing.  No-one wants to do that.

Still, I wouldn't worry too much. Clojure is still young, and
performance is already good enough for many, many applications.

--
Jarkko

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Clojure" group.
To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com
Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your 
first post.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to