From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Davis Herring Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:02:13 -0600 Organization: XCP-1 Message-ID: <577BE815.9050805@lanl.gov> References: <83y45lu2up.fsf@gnu.org> <54f5d80c-f20b-31aa-b438-401984fcb5b8@online.de> <874m89crw3.fsf@red-bean.com> <58c6fa18-d636-1498-8d37-b435c4ee8ec9@online.de> <83r3bdth7f.fsf@gnu.org> <06dfdf82-c469-8abe-15ab-22a96e64070b@online.de> <20160701175515.GA2618@acm.fritz.box> <20160701185704.GB2618@acm.fritz.box> <5776D31A.6050700@lanl.gov> <0606cae0-93b6-7e4a-c760-411326ac6970@online.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1467742334 23312 80.91.229.3 (5 Jul 2016 18:12:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2016 18:12:14 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Alan Mackenzie , Eli Zaretskii , =?UTF-8?Q?Cl=c3=a9ment_Pit--Claudel?= , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_R=c3=b6hler?= Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jul 05 20:12:04 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1bKUpD-0000qY-RP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 20:11:59 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56954 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKUpD-0004Oa-3c for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 14:11:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56487) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKTju-00029f-4I for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:02:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKTjo-000789-0S for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:02:25 -0400 Original-Received: from proofpoint4.lanl.gov ([2001:400:4210:400::a4]:36308) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bKTjn-000773-Es for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 05 Jul 2016 13:02:19 -0400 Original-Received: from mailrelay1.lanl.gov (mailrelay1.lanl.gov [128.165.4.101]) by mailgate4.lanl.gov (8.15.0.59/8.15.0.59) with ESMTP id u65H2Erp023057; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:02:14 -0600 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41E951404EE0; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:02:14 -0600 (MDT) X-NIE-2-Virus-Scanner: amavisd-new at mailrelay1.lanl.gov Original-Received: from chinstrap.lanl.gov (chinstrap.lanl.gov [128.165.123.246]) by mailrelay1.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B3381404EDC; Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:02:13 -0600 (MDT) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 In-Reply-To: <0606cae0-93b6-7e4a-c760-411326ac6970@online.de> X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.15.96, 1.0.3, 0.0.0000 definitions=2016-07-05_07:2016-07-04, 2016-07-05, 1970-01-01 signatures=0 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by mailgate4.lanl.gov id u65H2Erp023057 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:400:4210:400::a4 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:205188 Archived-At: >> Git, like init (and /etc/init.d), Emacs, NumPy, and basically every >> other non-trivial software system in existence, consists of a mix of >> compiled and interpreted code according to the strengths and >> weaknesses of each. Everyone knows this. > > So why you tell that? > [...] > Still don't understand why qualifying git "C-based" should be wrong. Because you drew attention to Git's C basis as (what appeared to be) an=20 argument for moving Emacs in that direction, despite the fact that Emacs=20 is already C-based in much the same fashion as Git (other than that=20 there are many C functions which take Lisp_Object). > My suggestion is about re-considerating, reversing a kind of dogmatic > pro-elisp policy - as I felt it. > While completely agree with Cl=E9ment's posts here --stressing the > benefits of Lisp debugging etc.-- > these strength is less important WRT lifetime of core functions. The extent of that policy is "put in in Elisp unless there's a good=20 reason not to", which is merely a question of burden of proof. And that=20 direction of burden makes sense: it is widely accepted that C=20 programming takes longer, so why pay for it in the case where no one can=20 point out a reason one way or the other? > The idea is about reflecting the reasons which part to keep in C, which > in Lisp. Don't have a quick answer for that. Roughly would favor to loo= k > what belongs to user-space, what not. Also stuff which is used seldom > probably doesn't deserve C, etc. No disagreement here -- but the utility of this conversation is quite=20 limited until you have such an answer (quick or otherwise). Merely=20 suggesting that people (who, say, are implementing a new feature and=20 need to decide what language to use) consider carefully which language=20 to use is not usefully distinct from the current "policy". > Amdahl is about processing power raised by number of kernels, no idea > what the example should contribute here. Amdahl's law is not so limited: see more precisely=20 . Spelled out explicitly: if, in some context, we spend only (say) 20% of=20 our time running Lisp code (vs., say, redisplay), then we can improve=20 the speed of that context by no more than 25% by rewriting that Lisp in=20 any fashion whatsoever (including C). Davis --=20 This product is sold by volume, not by mass. If it appears too dense or=20 too sparse, it is because mass-energy conversion has occurred during=20 shipping.