[Mono-list] mono performance, 20x differential with Java (what am i doing wrong)

Jonathan Shore jonathan.shore at gmail.com
Sat Jan 30 18:19:06 EST 2010

James, just FYI,  Miguel indicates that the mono team does plan to support TCO / F# fully.   I am also hoping that mono will continue to build out to the LLVM backend given the amount of investment that's been put into LLVM.   The performance results look very promising  (I am waiting for 64 bit support on OSX to test it out for myself).

This is an open source project, for which some of us benefit for free.  So from that perspective I think it is fair to try to solicit work from parties of interest.   However, as you point out, someone like myself is not really a developer in the VM space, so for me would be inappropriate.   I do numerical work and trading in the financial markets ...

On Jan 30, 2010, at 6:08 PM, James Mansion wrote:

> Alan McGovern wrote:
>> Feel free to contribute the changes required to remove the limitations 
>> on when/where mono performs TCO. That would allow you to contribute F# 
>> patches if you wish.
> I'm intrigued - why say that?  I mean - what's the point?  What are you 
> trying to achieve, really?
> If someone has domain knowledge and implementation skills on top of CLR 
> but can show that Mono is defective, its efinitely reasonable to ask 
> them to give 'the mono development community' a test case and bug report.
> But expecting them to climb the mountain of learning to fiddle with a 
> particular CLR implementation's core is nuts, particularly when they 
> have an alternate that works for them to do their day job. If someone 
> wanted to climb that mountain and make the changes, then presumably they 
> would want to start by reading the copious up to date detailed design 
> documentation and implementation notes on how (and why) it works now,  
> so that they could size the task.  Oh wait ... :-(
> Its much, much more efficient for someone who already groks the 
> internals to make fiddly low-level changes, particularly if getting them 
> into the release stream requires a lot of trust relationship with the 
> release masters. I think you do a huge disservice to everyone by trying 
> to get outsiders to work on something like that - or perhaps you just 
> want people with bad news to go away so you can paper over the cracks?
> Please, ask for test cases and reports.  FWIW I suspect (justa hunch, 
> I'm certainly not an expert) from what's been said that if a calling 
> convention change is needed (and I seem to remember there are some 
> issues that prevent fuller use of LLVM that one might also want to 
> consider if that sort of change is on the cards) then its as much a 
> political and major-version-compatibility issue as it is technical, and 
> once again asking someone to work on patches in such a situation is 
> laughable, given the degree of risk that they might completely waste 
> their time.
> James
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list

More information about the Mono-list mailing list