use Perl

• Indeed... (Score:2)

  by Matts (1087)

  I thought about doing this a while ago. Another advantage being that you could get around perl's crappy OO system by using proper structs.
  
  Unfortunately I stopped at the "thinking" stage :-/
• Interesting idea (Score:2)

  by samtregar (2699)

  So how would it work? Let's say I do:

    use Class::XSMethodMaker
       get_set => [qw(foo bar)];

  Does this mean that XS code for foo() and bar() are generated and compiled on the fly? Or does it just do what Class::MethodMaker does and generate closures bound to *foo and *bar? Can you generate a closure in XS which closes around C code?

  -sam
  • Re:Interesting idea (Score:1)

    by IlyaM (2933)

    Tough question. One possible solution is pregenerating XS code given a list of fields. Another even generating C code on fly what should not be very hard using Inline::C. Anyway it doesn't seem a proper way to me and I'd like to be able simulate closures in C code. No idea how though. Not sure that it is even possible.

    --
    

    Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/ [martynov.org])
• Why are they faster? (Score:1)

  by Dom2 (2981)

  I was always under the impression that perl method dispatch was what caused things to take such a long time. If that's the case, then surely having methods execute faster once they've been dispatched to, wouldn't help much.

  Or am I missing the point (or should that be the profile?) here?

  -Dom
  • Re:Why are they faster? (Score:1)

    by IlyaM (2933)

    Perl method dispatch is slow but perl code for accessors is not fast also. Here an example (one accessor is implemented in Perl and another in C with help of Inline::C):

    use Benchmark;
    
    my $obj = A->new;
    $obj->field1('test');
    $obj->field2('test');
    
    timethese(1000000,
    &nb sp;         { pure_perl => sub { $obj->field1($obj->field1) },
                inline_c  => sub { $obj->field2($obj->field2) }
              })

    --
    

    Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/ [martynov.org])