Short: Amylaar vs. MudOS Date: 981027 Type: Feature State: Proposed Author: <tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu> Long: In article <361DE471.B3B75F6E@mdisystems.com>, Lars Duning <lduning@mdisystems.com> writes: > You don't happen to have any information why MudOS is faster than > Amylaar? The short answer is because I spent quite a bit of my time working my ass off to make it that way :-) 6 years ago, the biggest complaint about MudOS was it was slower than Amylaar, so it was one of the things we worked the hardest on. Seriously, It's a combination of quite a number of things. The bytecode is somewhat more efficient, common operations are more aggressively optimized, etc. One thing that probably helps the most is that MudOS actually compiles to parse trees then generates the code from that, while Amylaar still uses the "direct to bytecode" approach, which makes it much tougher to generate good bytecode. Amylaar also still duplicates nonshared strings whenever the svalues are copied; that makes string operations quite slow. The compiler scratchbad speeds up the compiler quite a bit, since it doesn't have to call malloc() every time it sees a symbol. This optimization alone can be as much as a factor of two in compiler speed. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Hollebeek | "Everything above is a true email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu | statement, for sufficiently URL: http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim | false values of true."
