|
|
|
|
|
by b2gills
2440 days ago
|
|
I have a different perspective. When I have a bit of Raku code that is too slow I complain (send a bug report) and then someone else figures out why the JIT isn't doing a better job and fixes it. Then bingo-bango it ends up even faster than using NativeCall to call into the C code. Of course there may be a delay before someone gets around to figuring it out; so in the meantime, NativeCall is actually very easy to use. --- I would like to note that someone wrote Perl6/Raku code and the equivalent C/C++ code. They reported that the Perl6/Raku code was faster. (It was before Raku was brought up as an alias/name.) I'm fairly sure that the reason the C/C++ code was slower is that it copied strings around rather than using pointers and indexes into other strings like MoarVM does. |
|