Lee Salzman <lee.salzman at lvdi.net> wrote:
>     Well, currently Squeampiler is in no way intended to obviate a lot
> of the existing compilation mechanisms. If anything, it is intended to
> complement them, though. :) However, making Squeampiler do some closure
> optimizations would be cool, but would mean I'd have to make it more
> knowledgeable of much higher level details (although I've been pondering
> this lately for other things).

Sounds like your squeampiler is just concerned with the back-end, ie. it
takes bytecodes as input.  You still may want to check out the BC
version.  It has totally new bytecodes that are faster to interpret and
I think will be faster/easier to translate to machine code.