62 messages in org.codehaus.groovy.devRe: [groovy-dev] Groovy performance: ...
FromSent OnAttachments
Alex Tkachman19 Feb 2008 02:09 
Steven Devijver19 Feb 2008 02:37 
Alexandru Popescu ☀19 Feb 2008 02:57 
Alex Tkachman19 Feb 2008 03:03 
Patric Bechtel19 Feb 2008 03:12 
Guillaume Laforge19 Feb 2008 03:25 
Guillaume Laforge19 Feb 2008 03:26 
Patric Bechtel19 Feb 2008 05:05 
Gavin Grover19 Feb 2008 05:51 
Steven Devijver19 Feb 2008 05:52 
Guillaume Laforge19 Feb 2008 05:54 
Tom Nichols19 Feb 2008 06:26 
Alex Tkachman19 Feb 2008 06:28 
Guillaume Laforge19 Feb 2008 06:35 
Tom Nichols19 Feb 2008 07:03 
Guillaume Laforge19 Feb 2008 07:38 
Chanwit Kaewkasi19 Feb 2008 07:52 
Charles Oliver Nutter19 Feb 2008 08:49 
Steven Devijver19 Feb 2008 10:03 
Charles Oliver Nutter19 Feb 2008 11:38 
Steven Devijver19 Feb 2008 12:11 
Alex Tkachman19 Feb 2008 12:39 
Alex Tkachman19 Feb 2008 12:48 
tugwilson19 Feb 2008 13:36 
Alex Tkachman19 Feb 2008 20:51 
Guillaume Laforge20 Feb 2008 02:10 
Jochen Theodorou20 Feb 2008 09:46 
Martin C. Martin20 Feb 2008 17:25 
Guillaume Laforge21 Feb 2008 01:35 
Tom Nichols21 Feb 2008 04:15 
Martin C. Martin21 Feb 2008 05:44 
Tom Nichols21 Feb 2008 06:22 
Smith, Jason, CTR, OASD(HA)/TMA21 Feb 2008 06:34 
Martin C. Martin21 Feb 2008 06:43 
Guillaume Laforge21 Feb 2008 06:48 
Guillaume Laforge21 Feb 2008 07:04 
Smith, Jason, CTR, OASD(HA)/TMA21 Feb 2008 07:18 
Charles Oliver Nutter21 Feb 2008 07:38 
Guillaume Laforge21 Feb 2008 07:42 
Martin C. Martin21 Feb 2008 08:36 
Martin C. Martin21 Feb 2008 08:48 
Pascal DeMilly21 Feb 2008 17:35 
Gavin Grover21 Feb 2008 18:21 
Jochen Theodorou22 Feb 2008 04:31 
Tom Nichols22 Feb 2008 04:49 
Charles Oliver Nutter22 Feb 2008 23:43 
Guillaume Laforge23 Feb 2008 00:28 
Martin C. Martin23 Feb 2008 03:51 
Jochen Theodorou23 Feb 2008 14:49 
Jochen Theodorou23 Feb 2008 14:53 
Charles Oliver Nutter24 Feb 2008 02:01 
Martin C. Martin24 Feb 2008 03:56 
Martin C. Martin24 Feb 2008 04:11 
Charles Oliver Nutter24 Feb 2008 05:12 
Jochen Theodorou24 Feb 2008 15:17 
Jochen Theodorou24 Feb 2008 15:31 
Alexandru Popescu ☀24 Feb 2008 15:36 
Martin C. Martin26 Feb 2008 14:20 
Martin C. Martin26 Feb 2008 15:15 
Jochen Theodorou27 Feb 2008 02:38 
Jochen Theodorou27 Feb 2008 03:03 
Martin C. Martin02 Mar 2008 17:21 
Subject:Re: [groovy-dev] Groovy performance: what to do
From:Charles Oliver Nutter (char@sun.com)
Date:02/22/2008 11:43:04 PM
List:org.codehaus.groovy.dev

Excellent summary of the problems with this proposal. I have some comments below.

Jochen Theodorou wrote:

Groovy has atm dynamic typing. Any change with a fast mode goals a more or less static system, which is a major change for such a language. There is either version 2, which will mean you can not mix dynamic typed parts and static typed parts in the same area and there is version 3 which allows that, but will also give not many hints when it will do static and when it will do dynamic typing.

This is exactly what worried me. Because static typing goes through an entirely different mechanism, it would be both confusing and problematic for users. This is further complicated by the many users that would try to take their Groovy code and "make it faster" by adding static types. Suddenly dispatch rules would be completely different, and the code would break.

Some argue, that they would like to use Groovy, because it has a better syntax... for example with closures. Let us forget a moment about the GDK methods. Let us first look at a usage of Closures:

My opinion here is that it sounds like many people want Groovy features in Java for certain pieces of code. I think that's a great idea...if these features have proven useful we should consider adding them to Java or consider making a static-typed Java-like language that supports them if we can't push through actual Java language changes. Heck, even the javac compiler toolchain is open-source now, so we could build off that.

But don't try to turn Groovy into "Java with extras" just because it might solve a few performance problems. It wouldn't be Groovy.

The way we want to go is to find a fast method selection process, where the selection will be cached at the place where the method call will be done (call site cache) and in later calls we will need only a verification step here, which can be much faster than the normal method selection and which probably can be inlined by the JIT together with the method call itself. This will mean that.

This is the technique that has been proven to work in JRuby, and it would work for Groovy too. I'm willing to help make it happen (once I find my misplaced 8th day of the week).

- Charlie

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email