Re: TIL redux (was Re: What will the Perl6 code name be?)

[Dan Sugalski]

At 12:48 AM 10/24/00 +0100, Simon Cozens wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 05:18:15PM -0400, Uri Guttman wrote:
> > basically the emitted machine code for TIL is very simplified C
> > routine calls and their argument setup and return. all the routine calls
> > are to perl ops with just the minimal stack glue code in between them.
>
>OK, you're re-inventing .NET.

No, we're re-inventing wheels *far* older than that... :-P

>Why?

Well, it's potentially faster for one thing. Besides losing the runops loop 
(or whatever replaces it) which is good, it means the program now lives in 
I space instead of D space, which may get us better cache usage. Rather 
than the perl program sharing the D cache with real data, it shares the I 
cache with the rest of the program, which can be good. (or bad, depending)

It also means that, since the program is a 'real' executable (for some 
value of real) we could potentially freeze it off to disk in some way, 
getting an executable. This may help reduce memory usage if we can get 
modules in a state where the perl code's actually a shared library, which'd 
be rather keen.

                                        Dan

--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski                          even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                         have teddy bears and even
                                      teddy bears get drunk