From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ken Raeburn Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Guile in Emacs Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:49:26 -0400 Message-ID: <5D7593D3-41D2-42BA-8215-1AF2BFA06A71@raeburn.org> References: <4B8147A9.7030504@gmail.com> <87aauiho3y.fsf_-_@lifelogs.com> <1271028837.6164.55.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <1271102739.6067.38.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <8039yz34ka.fsf@tiny.isode.net> <1271173887.6067.53.camel@dell-desktop.example.com> <87ljcqqxoc.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <87sk6y2s45.fsf@uwakimon.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1078) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1271263964 11959 80.91.229.12 (14 Apr 2010 16:52:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:52:44 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "emacs-devel@gnu.org discussions" To: "" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 14 18:52:43 2010 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O25pS-0004je-Uv for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 18:52:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:60613 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O25pS-0002GK-FX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:52:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O25mW-00071H-FB for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:49:40 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=58375 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O25mV-0006zr-4D for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:49:40 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O25mT-0007oX-2V for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:49:38 -0400 Original-Received: from splat.raeburn.org ([69.25.196.39]:42580 helo=raeburn.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O25mL-0007l5-6y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:49:37 -0400 Original-Received: from squish.raeburn.org (squish.raeburn.org [10.0.0.172]) by raeburn.org (8.14.3/8.14.1) with ESMTP id o3EGnQXR028693; Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:49:26 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1078) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:123652 Archived-At: On Apr 14, 2010, at 08:26, = wrote: > I am certainly prepared to believe that Guile is faster than the = current > Emacs Lisp engine I have no idea if that's true, at the moment. > but I am also absolutely convinced that unless it has > improved radically If you haven't used it in a while, it may have -- the current = development version uses a byte code engine for execution, which I = believe has sped most stuff up quite a bit. > it will fall noticeably behind systems that compiles > to native code, whether directly or via C. Both approaches are getting serious consideration from the current Guile = developers. Ken=