>> Modern p-Code-like systems include Java
>> and .Net, both of which often get closer-to-native performance by using =
a
>> backend code generator (ofter a Just-In-Time (JIT) compiler) to convert=
=20
>> the
>> p-Code to native machine language.
>>
>
> That technology only makes it faster, but will never get any close to a
> native application in terms of speed. .NET is actually not too bad, but
> still, far from a native speed.
>
> What they should do is to compile the code when installing the software=20
> and
> job is done. Maybe installation would be much slower, so they could cache
> the binaries of the most popular platforms to help on it -- so then they=
=20
> are
> slowly going back to the traditional cross compilation procedure what=20
> Linux
> is doing today :-)
>
> Tamas

..NET actually supports pre-compiling to machine language, either at=20
development time or installation time. However, very few people bother to=20
use this as it generates (IIUC) the same code as the Jitter, but requires a=
=20
lot more hassle. Under normal circumstances the Jitter only runs the first=
=20
time a method is called, and even then it is pretty fast.

-- Bob Ammerman
RAm Systems

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.