On Thursday 21 August 2003 21:40, Brent Dax wrote:
> # we're already running with a faster opcode dispatch
Man I wish I had the time to keep up with parrot development. Though, as
others have pointed out, the core archetecture is somewhat solidified by this
point, I thought I'd put in my tw
On 08/21/03 Tom Locke wrote:
> Note that I have *absolutely* no opinion on this (I lack the knowledge).
> It's just that with Perl, Python, Ruby, the JVM and the CLR all stack based,
> Parrot seems out on a limb. That's fine by me -- innovation is not about
> following the crowd, but I feel it does
L PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 6:40 PM
Subject: RE: Registers vs. Stack
> Dan should really be answering this, but I'll try...
>
> Tom Locke:
> # The FAQ briefly mentions:
> #
> # we're already running with a faste
Dan should really be answering this, but I'll try...
Tom Locke:
# The FAQ briefly mentions:
#
# we're already running with a faster opcode dispatch
# than [Perl, Python, and Ruby] are, and having registers just
# decreases the amount of stack thrash we get.
#
# Can I for one ask for
Sean O'Rourke wrote:
> From: Sean O'Rourke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 1:56 PM
> To: Tom Locke
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Registers vs. Stack
>
>
> "Tom Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
"Tom Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> p.s. (and at the risk of being controversial :) Why did Miguel de
> Icaza say Parrot was "based on religion"? Was it realted to this
> issue? Why is he wrong?
IIRC it is -- his take is that stack VM code provides useful
information about variable lifetimes
Hi All
Is there somewhere you can point me to a discussion about the choice for a
register VM rather than a stack VM? If not, let's have it now - I'll
volunteer to tidy the end result into a postable form.
The FAQ briefly mentions:
we're already running with a faster opcode dispatch
than
