On 10/13/2015 03:13 AM, David Kastrup wrote: > John Wiegley writes: > >>>>>>> Ken Raeburn writes: >> >>>> The main reason I stopped is that it didn't help performance enough. The >>>> slowness imposed by constantly looking up symbol names at global scope, due >>>> to dynamic binding, dominated the profiling results. >> >>> Do you think the introduction of lexical binding support changes the balance >>> much? (Or was your work after lexical binding was added?) >> >> I think it should really help performance, but I haven't measured yet. > > I don't think it will really help performance all that much if you > measure it now since the inescapable cost of establishing and resolving > dynamic bindings at every let or function boundary has both made certain > optimizations mostly pointless as well as lending preference to a > programming style using iteration and setq rather than recursive > techniques. Maybe it's blasphemous to say so, but I often find iterate code much more comprehensible and easily modified than equivalent logic written recursively.