” *(some-str)”
Wouldn’t “+(some-str)” be better for 1..n occurrences?
(apologies if this triple-posts … connection trouble)
Feeds
105363 items (97572 unread) in 19 feeds
Friends
(1021 unread)
-
2 Star
(84 unread)
-
John Carrino
(12 unread)
-
Comments for Josh the Outspoken
(296 unread)
-
Josh (34 unread)
-
Planet Matt
(595 unread)
Build
(68091 unread)
-
MAKE Magazine
(20292 unread)
-
Instructables.com
(35006 unread)
-
Hack A Day
(5017 unread)
-
Toolmonger
(7776 unread)
Heads
(716 unread)
-
Exploration Through Example
-
Paul Graham: Unofficial RSS Feed (113 unread)
-
Stevey's Blog Rants
(34 unread)
-
Joel on Software (207 unread)
-
Gibson Blog
(239 unread)
-
Adventures in Bloggery (123 unread)
News
(27537 unread)
-
Slashdot (25203 unread)
-
Economist.com Global Agenda (1412 unread)
-
Ruby Inside
(922 unread)
fun
(207 unread)
-
Templar, Arizona
(207 unread)
Comments for Josh the Outspoken (4 unread)
-
Comment on Draft Syntax by Peter Lund
Posted: May 28th, 2011, 8:56am MDT by Peter Lund
-
Comment on upb status and preliminary performance numbers by John "Z-Bo" Zabroski
Posted: May 16th, 2011, 5:04pm MDT by John "Z-Bo" Zabroski
Interesting. David Ryan’s Argot project uses a JITer, and his explanation of using a JITer is not simply the reasons you give here, although they are bonus points for the Argot MCG (Micro Code Generator) which outputs C code.
The main idea behind Argot was resource consumption on embedded systems and to allow bootstrapping systems from nothing, like the kind the 6lowpan (IPv6 over Low power Wireless Personal Area Networks) working group were concerned with. David was a member of that committee, although somebody else’s ideas ultimately won out.
Something for you to blog about in the future, I guess!
-
Comment on upb status and preliminary performance numbers by Josh
Posted: May 9th, 2011, 12:01pm MDT by Josh
Will, that’s an interesting question but I doubt that Hotspot could generate code that is as good as mine. Not because I think I’m better at this than the Hotspot authors, but because I am compiling directly from a description of the .proto file into machine code. In the Hotspot case, the flow is more like:
.proto file -> Java -> JVM byte-code -> machine code
The fact that you have to go through Java and JVM byte-code first means that you are limited by what can be expressed in Java. For example, Java doesn’t even have unsigned types!
In fact I think the JIT part is a bit of a distraction, because upb isn’t actually using any run-time information that isn’t available as part of the .proto file to begin with. So even the C++ protobuf compiler (which works ahead-of-time) has just as much information as upb’s JIT does. I’m JITting for convenience, not because I’m using any runtime information (well, at least not yet
. -
Comment on upb status and preliminary performance numbers by Will
Posted: May 7th, 2011, 11:30am MDT by Will
If JITting helps so much, how does the java implementation of protobufs compares when run under Hotspot? I’m guessing much slower, but I wonder if that has to be the case.