On Nov 17, 9:47 am, Markus Liedl <m.li... / gmx.de> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 9:26 am, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nut... / sun.com>
> wrote:
> > Markus Liedl wrote:
> > > On the bad side parsers using this grammar work slower. Even the
> > > faster of both implementations is many times slower than the MRI
> > > parser.
>
> > Do you expect this can be improved? If there's a performance hit for
> > using this parser it will substantially limit adoption.
>
> Well I didn't ever benchmark MRI's parser before writing this grammar.
> The problem for any other parser is that it is blindingly fast.  Still
> I don't believe speed is that important. To give you at least one
> number: One my specific hardware, the C parser groks around 3 MBytes
> of Ruby code per second. Does this seem fast or slow to you?
>
> With careful work one may make the C parser maybe two times faster,
> maybe more.  I don't think I will spend my time on that.

I've checked in a file pending-optimizations.txt. I won't work
on that for now but at least its written up somewhere.