{
  "@context":[
    "https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams",
    {"Hashtag":"as:Hashtag"}
  ],
  "published":"2023-09-21T22:09:32.919Z",
  "attributedTo":"https://gopinath.org/actors/rahul",
  "to":["https://www.w3.org/ns/activitystreams#Public","https://a.gup.pe/u/seresearchers"],
  "cc":["https://gopinath.org/actors/rahul/followers"],
  "content":"<p>A really interesting paper about comparison between AST based tree walking interpreters and byte code interpreters: Larose, Kaleba, Burchell and Marr&nbsp; <a href=\"https://stefan-marr.de/downloads/oopsla23-larose-et-al-ast-vs-bytecode-interpreters-in-the-age-of-meta-compilation.pdf\"><strong>AST vs. Bytecode: Interpreters in the Age of Meta-Compilation</strong></a><strong> </strong>at OOPSLA'23. They compared Python and Smalltalk interpreters with tree walking and bytecode based implementation. Their finding is that AST interpreters using meta compilation (RPython and Truffle+Graal) were faster than byte code counterparts even after applying all relevant optimizations possible for bytecodes.</p><p>This is a very interesting result because AST tree walkers are much more easier to construct and to teach (personal experience). <a href=\"https://gopinath.org/tags/SE\" class=\"hashtag\" rel=\"tag\">#SE</a> <a href=\"https://a.gup.pe/u/seresearchers\" class=\"mention\" rel=\"tag\">@seresearchers</a></p>",
  "mediaType":"text/html",
  "attachment":[],
  "tag":[
      {"type":"Hashtag","name":"#SE","href":"https://gopinath.org/tags/SE"},
      {"type":"Mention","name":"@seresearchers@a.gup.pe","href":"https://a.gup.pe/u/seresearchers"}
  ],
  "type":"Note",
  "id":"https://gopinath.org/objects/2Wt_gDjU5Xk"
}