Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

amazing. Some day there will be a book written about this perfect storm: "The Language Age". Ok, I admit. I started watching this presentation last night: http://www.parleys.com/display/PARLEYS/Home#talk=2556139;slide=1;title=The%20future%20will%20be%20about%20programming%20languages did I see

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Jan 21, 5:02 pm, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Tuesday 20 January 2009 21:41:29 Rich Hickey wrote: > > > This issue (TCO) is resolved - it's a limitation of the JVM that > > Clojure accepts. If that is a significant problem for anyone they > > should either not use Clojure or work on adding TCO to

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Tuesday 20 January 2009 21:41:29 Rich Hickey wrote: > This issue (TCO) is resolved - it's a limitation of the JVM that > Clojure accepts. If that is a significant problem for anyone they > should either not use Clojure or work on adding TCO to the JVM via the > MLVM effort: > > http://openjdk.j

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Jan 20, 1:41 pm, Rich Hickey wrote: > Let's keep from making the same mistakes as c.l.l, including calling > people trolls. Sorry, yes Rich, I will refrain from using such titles in the future. mfh --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you ar

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Jan 20, 4:21 pm, "Mark H." wrote: > On Jan 20, 9:31 am, Jon Harrop wrote: > > > On Tuesday 20 January 2009 08:01:19 ivant wrote: > > > > IIRC, the only major complain Rich has about JVM is the lack > > > of tail-call optimization. > > > That's a pretty major problem. :-) > > btw, did you ev

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Jan 20, 9:31 am, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Tuesday 20 January 2009 08:01:19 ivant wrote: > > > IIRC, the only major complain Rich has about JVM is the lack > > of tail-call optimization. > > That's a pretty major problem. :-) btw, did you ever stop trolling comp.lang.lisp? You were the main rea

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > On Tuesday 20 January 2009 08:01:19 ivant wrote: > > IIRC, the only major complain Rich has about JVM is the lack > > of tail-call optimization. > > That's a pretty major problem. :-) > > It's a problem, and I hope future versions of the JVM

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Tuesday 20 January 2009 08:01:19 ivant wrote: > IIRC, the only major complain Rich has about JVM is the lack > of tail-call optimization. That's a pretty major problem. :-) -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e --~--~-~--~~~--

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Jan 20, 12:01 am, ivant wrote: > On Jan 20, 3:14 am, e wrote: > > > That's a solid arg, too . . . but it would be stronger if we weren't > > importing things from java all the time.  If we said like, "(gui-frame > > "hello"), which happened to be implemented as a JFrame . . . then that'd be >

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

fyi... non of the bytecode machines made much headway; once you get above a certain (actually fairly small) size device you can afford a tiny JIT - and even a trivial JIT instantly blows away pure bytecode interpreters; to the point that the energy consumed is actually less even counting the JIT c

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Jan 20, 3:14 am, e wrote: > That's a solid arg, too . . . but it would be stronger if we weren't > importing things from java all the time.  If we said like, "(gui-frame > "hello"), which happened to be implemented as a JFrame . . . then that'd be > even stronger.  Drop in a different REPL and

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

That's a solid arg, too . . . but it would be stronger if we weren't importing things from java all the time. If we said like, "(gui-frame "hello"), which happened to be implemented as a JFrame . . . then that'd be even stronger. Drop in a different REPL and you'd still get a JFrame-like thing ev

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Jan 18, 8:48 am, e wrote: > That's a great argument.  I need arguments like these.  I work with people > who dismiss JVM.  Even though there are many non-Sun JVM's, folks say, "Sun > is dead -> java is dead -> jvm is dead." . even though Java is the most > popular language right > now.htt

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

I see. From wikipedia: "A Jazelle-aware Java Virtual Machine(JVM) will attempt to run Java bytecodes in hardware, while returning to the software for more complicated, or lesser-used bytecode operations. ARM claim that approximately 95% of bytecod

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

That's a great argument. I need arguments like these. I work with people who dismiss JVM. Even though there are many non-Sun JVM's, folks say, "Sun is dead -> java is dead -> jvm is dead." . even though Java is the most popular language right now. http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paper

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Jan 16, 6:47 am, e wrote: > Is it much much easier to make byte code than assembly code? I'll chime in too to say that x86 is only king of the desktop / laptop world -- many portable devices are ARM-based (and a lot of Windows apps run on ARM), and there are other architectures used for enter

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

> SVN 1216 - thanks for the report. Thanks for the quick fix! -Jason --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 To unsubscribe fr

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Jan 16, 9:47 am, e wrote: > Is it much much easier to make byte code than assembly code?   To some extent, yes. JVM bytecode is certainly simpler than x86 assembly. The big win is that bytecode is platform-neutral, so you don't have to rewrite your compiler for each architecture. Java's ju

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Jan 16, 2009, at 15:47, e wrote: > Is it much much easier to make byte code than assembly code? I > mean, I understand why running on a VM makes sense as far as > instantly inheriting all the massive amounts of things out here for > Java but would it be possible to shoot for someth

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

This is probably a silly question, well outside the scope of this conversation (but maybe not, and I didn't want to start a whole thread on it). Is it much much easier to make byte code than assembly code? I mean, I understand why running on a VM makes sense as far as instantly inheriting all the

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

On Jan 16, 5:15 am, Christian Vest Hansen wrote: > Here's my theory. > > In your when example, "when" is a macro that is expanded to an "if" > special form. Your other examples, however, wrap your code in a > function call. > > Now, functions in Clojure can't really take primitive arguments, so

Re: Mysterious performance anomalies

Here's my theory. In your when example, "when" is a macro that is expanded to an "if" special form. Your other examples, however, wrap your code in a function call. Now, functions in Clojure can't really take primitive arguments, so in spite of your coercion efforts Clojure introduces boxing in