Eyck has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:
Most not-completely-compiled languages provide a way of caching compilation - through the use of pre-compiled libraries/programs/stuff ( lisp, python, java etc use such solutions )
Why doesn't perl pre-compile often-used things?
UPDATE
The way I see it, "Bytecode" support in perl is just a toy, and a way to show off the flexibility of the language.
What is missing is in-perl support for parse trees, something that would bypass whole compilation phase, and that would include libraries support.
This would have quite remarkable effect on perl
- REALLY improved startup time for apps that use lot of libraries
- for sysadmins - reduced cost of perl in cron
- lower resources required for running perl, thus, perl on embeded machines starts making sense
- PAR - such bytecode support would turn ingenious PAR into relatively simple excercise. (OTOH, experiences with PAR suggest that it might not be that easy..)
What bugs me, is the fact that when perl was being created, such pre-compiled bytecode support was en-vogue, lisp did it etc.. And since perl internally uses bytecode/parse tree, it would be trivial to add. What is the reason for that?
|
---|
Replies are listed 'Best First'. | |
---|---|
Re: Precompiled perl...
by borisz (Canon) on Oct 27, 2004 at 09:26 UTC | |
by Eyck (Priest) on Oct 27, 2004 at 10:03 UTC | |
by diotalevi (Canon) on Oct 27, 2004 at 14:41 UTC | |
by Eyck (Priest) on Oct 28, 2004 at 06:35 UTC | |
Re: Precompiled perl...
by PodMaster (Abbot) on Oct 27, 2004 at 09:37 UTC | |
Re: Precompiled perl...
by crenz (Priest) on Oct 27, 2004 at 12:46 UTC | |
Re: Precompiled perl...
by htoug (Deacon) on Oct 28, 2004 at 07:41 UTC | |
by Eyck (Priest) on Oct 28, 2004 at 08:06 UTC | |
Re: Precompiled perl...
by DrHyde (Prior) on Oct 28, 2004 at 08:44 UTC | |
by Eyck (Priest) on Oct 28, 2004 at 09:51 UTC |