On May 6, 9:29 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Isaac Gouy wrote: > > On May 6, 6:09 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Alex Martelli wrote: > > >>>John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >>>>>On Apr 27, 9:07 am, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>>>>>The CPython implementation is unreasonably slow compared > >>>>>>to good implementations of other dynamic languages such > >>>>>>as LISP and JavaScript. > >> My point is that there are optimizing hard-code compiler implementations > >>of many dynamic languages, including LISP, Self, and Smalltalk, but not > >>Python. > > > I guess Lisp is a safe-ish example but I don't think Self really made > > it out of the lab, and it really depends which Smalltalk > > implementation you have in mind and what you think about Pysco. > > See > > http://research.sun.com/self/papers/third-generation.html > > on a high performance Self implementation. That laid the groundwork > for Java's JIT system.
I don't think Java HotSpot equates to Self getting out of the lab. (And wasn't that more directly related to Strongtalk?) > Here are some early Tamarin benchmarks. > > http://www.playercore.com/pub/Tamarin/Avmplus_vs._javascript.htm > > Tamarin doesn't do type inference, though, so they get the best > performance only with type declarations. > > John Nagle Thank you Neil Hodgson :-) I wonder where the runtime was hosted? I wonder what current measurements look like? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
