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: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 01:28:45 -0400 Message-ID: References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <87io6dl0h0.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87lhb82qxc.fsf@gmail.com> <87oag4jk74.fsf@wanadoo.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2104\)) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444714166 9473 80.91.229.3 (13 Oct 2015 05:29:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 05:29:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: John Wiegley Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 13 07:29:17 2015 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 1Zls9E-0005ea-9v for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 07:29:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60674 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zls9D-0003qx-19 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 01:29:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35910) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zls8v-0003qf-BZ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 01:28:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zls8q-0006Ht-1r for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 01:28:57 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-qk0-f169.google.com ([209.85.220.169]:34571) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zls8p-0006Hl-To for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 01:28:51 -0400 Original-Received: by qkfm62 with SMTP id m62so865012qkf.1 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 22:28:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:mime-version:content-type:from :in-reply-to:date:cc:content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references :to; bh=M4MunhvM8bZZsTIy++eN3rhSzg/BFTg8HEf3zZytyOk=; b=XPKOhehlKb3whpJMxGMJaggIiIwX8SFLqVVX4/ajEdltxDwlDTuz0TCv+4QLisr6V/ fwV/Nq9ZvPBRhvBb18HBgDTJ7YDyCBVF3l9DTbe8cDlupsmq1FYnd9g/S9QPh6XzTmoW 4T/mS5SEB5+1gO9LUj4K6qs+esqVirKD3hSORD0OAuq4QoJUoPaEMtF3Zb7m5/ZlLbet kLYspVYFdOst5tYCAYOFDA5c3yN1MMV9HfMHQKn5cTS8KnVyCUEVoQnYsztgfzAA4mhn PE3mmytXqn3HuhePDeM3K493/nFuNWIPYuNRx1mA/avD1d9zW04lZv7UtNgdr4Q9WXC2 drKA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlQ0dDwPDHLxkwMkhJIw+esgtW8YQTYw4oO2q3MEBl3x2fU89AhE/EXYbIgVI5u6VomthrA X-Received: by 10.55.26.170 with SMTP id l42mr24764210qkh.40.1444714130706; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 22:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.17.111] (c-66-31-203-101.hsd1.ma.comcast.net. [66.31.203.101]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 82sm546231qhs.8.2015.10.12.22.28.49 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 22:28:50 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2104) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 209.85.220.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:191427 Archived-At: > The thought of an Elisp->C compiler that could produce well-performing = code is > very interesting. I starting working on an LLVM JIT for Emacs bytecode = at one > point -- got as far as hello world -- and it was not terribly = difficult. 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. >=20 > A subset of Elisp that doesn't have dynamic binding might well produce = code > that could be of use to us, and wouldn't need any of the macros we = currently > use to communicate between the two languages. Do you think the introduction of lexical binding support changes the = balance much? (Or was your work after lexical binding was added?) Ken=