Re: Why tree-sitter instead of Semantic? (was Re: CC Mode with font-lock-maximum-decoration 2)

[tomas@tuxteam.de]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1288 bytes --]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2022 at 10:41:16AM +0600, Akib Azmain Turja wrote:

[...]

> Yeah, it's possible for very optimized Brainfuck code to beat poor C
> code. Emacs has a native compiler, and AFAIK it's a ahead of time (AOT)
> compiler.  If you really need a JIT, do performance-critical things in
> Guile Scheme and use results from Emacs.

I wasn't talking about brainfuck, but about Lua. And about the fact
that performance is such a broad topic as to make sweeping assertions
(like "C is faster than...") almost always wrong in some way.

Of course, current C compilers are extremely good in the niche they
were designed for (AOT compiling, not extremely complex systems [1]),
because tons and tons of resources went into them already. When other
systems get that attention (see Stefan's example with Javascript in
this thread), you see results. They can play out advantages found in
other niches (no AOT, e.g. JIT) and so on.

As for Guile/Emacs, there are people working on that. Their approach,
though, is to teach Guile to understand Emacs Lisp. It moves slowly...
for a lack of resources.

Cheers

[1] Extremely complex systems are still possible, but very expensive.
   Cf. the Linux kernel.
[2] e.g. https://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/GuileEmacs

-- 
t

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]