[M3devel] JIT [WAS: Google Benchmark - anyone interested in an Modula 3 version?]

[Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.]

Hi all:
yes, that's the case, some call the natural problem in typing statically annotated languages, static type checking (which is resolved pretty much well, some may argue about this in generics but anyway...), if the problem is to determine what is the best compiler that can type check this language without type annotations but rather dynamically typed program (so, it might be reasonable your statement), nevertheless this problems arise in JIT dynamic typed part of the language, but as said a good compromise could be made for those cases, both in theoretical or transforming the problem to other domains such as constraint inferencing which requires several good heuristics, so it's a good point to investigate them.
Thanks in advance 

--- El mar, 5/7/11, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com> escribió:

> De: Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> Asunto: Re: [M3devel] JIT [WAS: Google Benchmark - anyone interested in an Modula 3 version?]
> Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Fecha: martes, 5 de julio, 2011 09:06
> If understand correctly, these
> results are about figuring out what types 
> the programmer meant if he failed to specify any.  My
> view is that the 
> programmer probably knew full well what he meant, and he
> might as well 
> say so, in the interest of clarity if nothing else.  I
> find programs 
> with secret types to be incomprehensible, even while I'm
> writing them.
> 
> And getting error messages if what I wrote doesn't match
> what I 
> intended, and getting better run-time, well, those are
> wonderful 
> consequences.
> 
> -- hendrik
> 
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 01:31:12AM +0100, Daniel Alejandro
> Benavides D. wrote:
> > Hi all:
> > In fact there is some reqwork to make things happen
> faster in Abadi-Cardelli:
> > http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.36.110
> > 
> > Never looked that paper, if I may say so, the approach
> by Tian Zhao omitted it, but as for your worries, this could
> make it work faster.
> > I guess there should be some Turing awards waiting for
> somebody who can run even lower, but this geniuses come
> counted by the fingers of one hand, but you can't say this
> is the end, that's for sure, but then there's even worse
> situations if you add the self-object extension like for JS,
> and this is a certainly an open problem (even that I tried
> but for a good type theorist could be not that hard, as I
> consider myself just a follower of them).
> > But Abadi-Cardelli's work was a bit hit, and it's
> quite practical in terms of research results I believe. Yet
> this is not the last work in this are.
> > Thanks in advance
> > 
> > --- El lun, 4/7/11, Daniel Alejandro Benavides D.
> <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es>
> escribió:
> > 
> > > De: Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es>
> > > Asunto: Re: [M3devel] JIT [WAS: Google Benchmark
> - anyone interested in an Modula 3 version?]
> > > Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com,
> "Hendrik Boom" <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> > > Fecha: lunes, 4 de julio, 2011 19:16
> > > Hi all:
> > > I think yes, any other full bloated object
> oriented
> > > language has that floor, of course, you can help
> the
> > > compiler by giving some annotations, but for the
> theoretical
> > > results, this is what is proved to be truth.
> > > 
> > > Thanks in advance
> > > 
> > > --- El lun, 4/7/11, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> > > escribió:
> > > 
> > > > De: Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> > > > Asunto: Re: [M3devel] JIT [WAS: Google
> Benchmark -
> > > anyone interested in an Modula 3 version?]
> > > > Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> > > > Fecha: lunes, 4 de julio, 2011 19:13
> > > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 06:08:54PM
> > > > +0100, Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > So this time I'm happy to be wrong, we
> can do
> > > indeed
> > > > JIT but we should 
> > > > > measure the cost (as for type inference
> could
> > > for
> > > > **imp**ç run O(n^3) 
> > > > > and currently run O(n^5), it might be
> necessary
> > > do
> > > > decompiling plus 
> > > > > naturally compiling and forth inc ase
> of NetObj,
> > > etc
> > > > 
> > > > O(n^3)? O(n^5)? If that's performance in
> practical
> > > > situations, instead 
> > > > of just a class of theoretical examples it's
> not what
> > > we
> > > > need for 
> > > > everyday use.  I'd call it
> useless.  It's
> > > > defnietely not what I'm 
> > > > thinking of. 
> > > > 
> > > > -- hendrik
> > > >
> > >
>