Erlang questions on comp.lang.functional.
Mon Mar 3 08:44:15 CET 2003
Per Bergqvist <> wrote:
> > > 2. Bytecode interpreted (i.e. not compiled to native code).
> > Isn't this why we have HIPE? And thus far, I have not seen HIPE
> > performance over code run in the bytecode interpreter. Therefore I
> > to ask:
> > - is the rest of erts slow?
> > - is the bytecode interpreter really fast?
> erts and beam are quite good.
> HIPE generates good code for the function body but the gain is
> "hidden" by the overhead costs.
> Until HIPE starts to do loop and whole program optimisations we will
> not see any major improvement IMHO.
Ok, now you've got me looking forward to the day HiPE starts to do that. :)
AFAIK, Java is already doing this kind of optimization, it'll be nice
when we can really start to compete at the performance level with other
Oh wait, Erlang already does. :-) The testing I've been doing today
has been knocking my socks off performance wise. Just simple stuff
with ets, gen_tcp, term_to_binary, yet I'm quite amazed at how fast
Erlang really is. I can't remember when I had this much fun writing
sorta-complex software. :)
Next Friday will not be your lucky day. As a matter of fact, you don't
have a lucky day this year.
More information about the erlang-questions