At 22:14 24.03.99 -0800, Dan Ingalls wrote:
The main reason I have balked at this change so far is the cost in space for small implementations. [...] At that point we would have added 180k to the 530k mini image. This is why I am being conservative.
Thanks for the rationale. I had "paged out" this important limiting factor.
On the other hand, if such a speedup was reproducable on a PDA system, it might still be worth considering NCM to squeeze out more sends/sec from the processor. Depends on the specific hardware situation given.
Since you have published the numbers (and since I am certainly curious about them), I have to ask if they represent an apples-to-apples comparison. Are the VMs generated from the same compiler,
Touché. I have to admit that I just *assumed* they were comparable. Andreas' off-the-shelf VM was compiled by the current Visual-C++, correct?
and are the only differences in the handling of methods?
I see that Tim jumped to my help with a full explanation. :)
I know Tim has probably been frustrated at our apparent recalcitrance in not immediately adopting NCMs, so I'm glad you have induced me to articulate the issues.
I did not want to sound "demanding"- it's just that I was happy with the results I got, wondered if others shared the same experience or what the general reception was.
Dan, Tim, Ian- Thank you all for your explanations and clarifications.
Cheers, Helge