A lot of strange assumptions there..
First, "all languages that do not compile to native machine code
have some overhead"
As opposed to JIT compiled languages that can take stuff into
account discovered at runtime, which a static compilation cant?
Having a jit compiler can improve cache coherency for you, which is
tedious to do otherwise, among other things.
Static compilers have had 20+ years headstart on research, which
makes jit compilers downright impressive to me.
The fact that -one- person (mike pall) alone can produce a jit
compiler that takes a relatively 'simple' language like lua,
and push it to the levels he has, says alot too.
Seriously, which compiler do you think will be more prevalent in
say, 5-10 years time, when research -really- catches up?
Second, "any slight overhead is multiplied a huge number of times"
That's just weird and strange, and begs for a description of what
you think "huge" means, and where that multiplication comes from?
On 2010-10-13 15:32, HyperHacker wrote:
>
> For anyone interested, I've been using a patch that ...
