Try going via @racketlang to LLVM instead. You can get some impressive results for 'functional' languages. See for example https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.06562 [unless you're a reviewer for a conference that does light double-blind, then don't click that link].
-
-
-
I think that won't solve the tricky problems for Edwin (such as GC and tail calls).
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
There is a fair bit of effort required to make functional languages perform well with LLVM. A lot of it has to do with LLVM not having 'proper' tail call elimination and no GC 'for free'. There is a patch for LLVM by
@call1cc for TCE, but I don't know its status. -
This is usually what I end up thinking, then I remind myself I'm not a run time system hacker. I'd love to see it done though.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
There's two questions I always ask myself about functional languages: 1. is there any research about hardware designed explicitly to run functional code? 2. is there any research on using "rich" types at compile time to help/reduce/eliminate GC?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.