JIT is compiling to native code. "Huge" would be some number of times (depends on many factors) per operation; typically such applications are dealing with millions or billions of operations.
On today's systems and with Lua as fast as it is it's probably negligible for nearly all applications; I just thought I'd explain the logic behind the "script languages are too slow to do x" argument as well as that it's only true for certain uncommon values of x.
On 2010-10-13 7:51 AM, "Stefan Sandberg" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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 ...