On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 1:14 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > More seriously, the bytecode is harder to generate, > not more expressive (I think) and generating it loses you > optimizations.
I can only think of one optimization that runs on byte code. The byte code is more expressive though, because you can represent things (simple example: syntax objects) that you can't write down as Racket source. > Jay has a student working on a bytecode generator, but > I believe that's still alpha-stage. As of last week's Git version, we can bring in and emit every zo that "raco setup" produces in a way compatible with the C. This suggests that it's no longer alpha. Now we are using it for its intended purpose (whole program compilation) which will be a good example of its use. Jay -- Jay McCarthy <j...@cs.byu.edu> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University http://teammccarthy.org/jay "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93 _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
