From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Evans To: Ben Elliston Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Implementation Language Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 10:16:00 -0000 Message-id: <14732.19435.667853.528542@casey.transmeta.com> References: <14729.40545.762999.300037@casey.transmeta.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q3/msg00028.html Ben Elliston writes: > So does Guile follow a similar philosophy to Tcl -- to write performance > critical aspects in C and provide hooks into Scheme? Dunno in general, but that's certainly not excluded. The hooks are there, it's up to each app to use them or not. > > Do we have any performance issues with Guile? > Yes!!! > > Can you expand? I don't really consider the performance of code generation > to be that critical -- look at G++ these days. Also look at how long cgen takes to run vs the gen* fns in gcc. I don't mind the wait (much), but for the general audience I think that there's an order of magnitude speed up to be had and one way or another, I think it'll be thrust upon us. I'd rather the end result still be Scheme. [The Guile powers-that-be now believe (I think) that the current implementation isn't the best way to go and someone is writing a faster engine. Dunno how much of a speed up we'll get.] btw, I'm playing with Rscheme a lot these days. http://www.rscheme.org This is a Scheme implementation that rocks! (IMO) Speed-wise I think it also has a way to go, but the internals and design appeal to my aesthetic tastes (ymmv) in a way that Guile probably never will.