Re^4: Performance penalties of in-Perl docn vs compiled CGIs.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: Performance penalties of in-Perl docn vs compiled CGIs. by LanX (Saint) on Feb 05, 2021 at 21:57 UTC
What if we bundled the executable of a "compiler language" like C or Go with a compiler? Why shouldn't it be possible to do that? And "eval"-ing would mean to run a make process leading to dynamically linked and executed code? According to you this would define an "interpreter", right? :) Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^6: Performance penalties of in-Perl docn vs compiled CGIs. by bliako (Monsignor) on Feb 06, 2021 at 12:30 UTC
no, that would amount to shelling out, like with `system()`. `eval`'ing shares (edit: parent) program state, variables and can also influence/modify these.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^7: Performance penalties of in-Perl docn vs compiled CGIs. by LanX (Saint) on Feb 06, 2021 at 16:31 UTC
> that would amount to shelling out, If you realized it today, yes. You could implement it as internal feature. Nobody does, because the benefits of eval wouldn't justify the costs of a much larger binary. Cheers Rolf _{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language :) Wikisyntax for the Monastery}	[reply]
Re^8: Performance penalties of in-Perl docn vs compiled CGIs. by bliako (Monsignor) on Feb 06, 2021 at 20:03 UTC
Re^9: Performance penalties of in-Perl docn vs compiled CGIs. by hippo (Bishop) on Feb 07, 2021 at 11:09 UTC
Some notes below your chosen depth have not been shown here


Perl: the Markov chain saw
	PerlMonks