62 messages in org.codehaus.groovy.devRe: [groovy-dev] Groovy performance: ...
FromSent OnAttachments
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 2:09 am 
Steven DevijverFeb 19, 2008 2:37 am 
Alexandru Popescu ☀Feb 19, 2008 2:57 am 
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 3:03 am 
Patric BechtelFeb 19, 2008 3:12 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 19, 2008 3:25 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 19, 2008 3:26 am 
Patric BechtelFeb 19, 2008 5:05 am 
Gavin GroverFeb 19, 2008 5:51 am 
Steven DevijverFeb 19, 2008 5:52 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 19, 2008 5:54 am 
Tom NicholsFeb 19, 2008 6:26 am 
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 6:28 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 19, 2008 6:35 am 
Tom NicholsFeb 19, 2008 7:03 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 19, 2008 7:38 am 
Chanwit KaewkasiFeb 19, 2008 7:52 am 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 19, 2008 8:49 am 
Steven DevijverFeb 19, 2008 10:03 am 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 19, 2008 11:38 am 
Steven DevijverFeb 19, 2008 12:11 pm 
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 12:39 pm 
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 12:48 pm 
tugwilsonFeb 19, 2008 1:36 pm 
Alex TkachmanFeb 19, 2008 8:51 pm 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 20, 2008 2:10 am 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 20, 2008 9:46 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 20, 2008 5:25 pm 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 21, 2008 1:35 am 
Tom NicholsFeb 21, 2008 4:15 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 21, 2008 5:44 am 
Tom NicholsFeb 21, 2008 6:22 am 
Smith, Jason, CTR, OASD(HA)/TMAFeb 21, 2008 6:34 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 21, 2008 6:43 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 21, 2008 6:48 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 21, 2008 7:04 am 
Smith, Jason, CTR, OASD(HA)/TMAFeb 21, 2008 7:18 am 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 21, 2008 7:38 am 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 21, 2008 7:42 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 21, 2008 8:36 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 21, 2008 8:48 am 
Pascal DeMillyFeb 21, 2008 5:35 pm 
Gavin GroverFeb 21, 2008 6:21 pm 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 22, 2008 4:31 am 
Tom NicholsFeb 22, 2008 4:49 am 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 22, 2008 11:43 pm 
Guillaume LaforgeFeb 23, 2008 12:28 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 23, 2008 3:51 am 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 23, 2008 2:49 pm 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 23, 2008 2:53 pm 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 24, 2008 2:01 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 24, 2008 3:56 am 
Martin C. MartinFeb 24, 2008 4:11 am 
Charles Oliver NutterFeb 24, 2008 5:12 am 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 24, 2008 3:17 pm 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 24, 2008 3:31 pm 
Alexandru Popescu ☀Feb 24, 2008 3:36 pm 
Martin C. MartinFeb 26, 2008 2:20 pm 
Martin C. MartinFeb 26, 2008 3:15 pm 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 27, 2008 2:38 am 
Jochen TheodorouFeb 27, 2008 3:03 am 
Martin C. MartinMar 2, 2008 5:21 pm 
Actions with this message:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Paste this link in email or IM:
Atom feed for this thread
Paste this URL into your reader:
Subject:Re: [groovy-dev] Groovy performance: what to doActions...
From:Jochen Theodorou (blac@gmx.org)
Date:Feb 23, 2008 2:49:25 pm
List:org.codehaus.groovy.dev

Charles Oliver Nutter schrieb:

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

sure thing ;)

[...]

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.

well, I tried to show that current Groovy Closures do not translate nicely to a static typed system. If you want to provide direct method calls for closures, then you need a method signature, that means the name, the number of parameters, the types of the parameters and the return type as well as a class that defines all this. If you have these informations you can do all the nice compile time checks too, but that is just a side effect here.

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.

I agree.

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).

hehe, I might contact you soon about this, maybe you will have some time to replay to some mails.

bye blackdrag

-- Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou The Groovy Project Tech Lead (http://groovy.codehaus.org) http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ http://www.g2one.com/

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

http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email