Article View: comp.lang.misc
Article #3160Re: Dynamic typing -- To Have and Have Not (was Runti
From: Dan Bernstein
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1991 16:17
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1991 16:17
13 lines
1252 bytes
1252 bytes
In article <KERS.91Mar21121931@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) writes: > OK, but I'm still puzzled as to why you included the option of dearer > compile-time costs at all. Can you illustrate a case where a compiler for a > dynamically-typed language is *slower* than a compiler for a statically typed > language - when the compiler is written in the same language for both (ie, > we're comparing apples and apples)? Many people have spent many years trying to optimize dynamically typed languages (i.e., to get rid of the dynamic typing in the object code), with some success. When a compiler *doesn't* optimize a dynamically typed language, the final code is hellishly slow (as in most Lisps). ---Dan
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<16671:Mar2516:17:5291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstndReferences:
<KERS.91Mar19082354@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> <17928:Mar2012:22:5491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <KERS.91Mar21121931@cdollin.hpl.hp.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!cmcl2!kramden.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.object Subject: Re: Dynamic typing -- To Have and Have Not (was Runti Message-ID: <16671:Mar2516:17:5291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Date: 25 Mar 91 16:17:52 GMT References: <KERS.91Mar19082354@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> <17928:Mar2012:22:5491@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <KERS.91Mar21121931@cdollin.hpl.hp.com> Organization: IR Lines: 13