An Overwhelmingly Negative and Demoralizing Force

Re:An Overwhelmingly Negative and Demoralizing Force by achierius on Tuesday April 08, 2025 @08:07PM (#43627690)

You don't need a bytecode interpreter to not have UB defined in your language. E.g. instead of unchecked addition / array access, do checked addition / bounds checked access. There are even efforts to make this the case with C: https://github.com/pizlonator/llvm-project-deluge/blob/delug... achieves a ~50% overhead, far far better than Python.

And even among languages that do have a full virtual machine, Python is slow. Slower than JS, slower than Lisp, slower than Haskell by far.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An Overwhelmingly Negative and Demoralizing Force by pfdietz on Wednesday April 09, 2025 @09:48AM (#43632062)

Common Lisp and Scheme are typically compiled ahead of time right down to machine code. And isn't Haskell also?

There is a Common Lisp implementation that compiles to bytecode, CLISP. And there are Common Lisp implementations that compile (transpile?) to C.

[ Parent | on HN ]