Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!ece-csc!ncsuvx!gatech!bloom-beacon!IVORY.S4CC.SYMBOLICS.COM!ACW From: ACW@IVORY.S4CC.SYMBOLICS.COM (Allan C. Wechsler) Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme Subject: Re: dynamic compilation for scheme, with inlining, etc? Message-ID: <19880922144647.6.ACW@ROCKY-MOUNTAINS.S4CC.Symbolics.COM> Date: 22 Sep 88 14:46:00 GMT References: <327@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 14 Date: 19 Sep 88 20:36:51 GMT From: mcvax!ukc!cam-cl!adg@uunet.uu.net (Andy Gordon) [...] Interpreted code is generally smaller than compiled code so less space is needed than compiling the whole thing. This guy's whole approach is based on this premise. Does anyone want to disabuse him. For a simple recursive factorial, for example, I get about 25 words interpreted, and about ten compiled. I don't know what happens with large programs, but I suspect they show about the same ratio.