Re: In support of guile-emacs

[Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de>]

Hello, Daniel.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 07:14:55AM -0700, Daniel Colascione wrote:
> On 10/19/2015 03:24 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > Hello, Xue.

> > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 09:07:59AM +0800, Xue Fuqiao wrote:

> >> guile-emacs replaces Emacs's own Emacs Lisp engine with Guile's (without
> >> breaking backward compatibility).  So:

> >> * Emacs Lisp will execute faster (Guile VM bytecode is more efficient)

> > Just as a matter of interest, approximately how much faster is Guile
> > bytecode than Emacs bytecode?  Are we talking about 10%, 20%, 50%, a
> > factor of 2, or even higher?

> > If that speed increase was significant, it might be worth incorporating
> > Guile's bytecode into Emacs just for that reason, regardless of any of
> > the other stuff.

> Or simply making completely independent and custom-tailored improvements
> to the Emacs bytecode compiler and interpreter itself. There's no reason
> to imagine that the only way to improve performance there is to move to
> a completely different runtime.

Indeed not.  Lessons could be learnt from Guile, perhaps.  But how much
faster is Guile bytecode?

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).