From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Wiegley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:18:42 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <561A19AB.5060001@cumego.com> <87io6dl0h0.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87lhb82qxc.fsf@gmail.com> <87oag4jk74.fsf@wanadoo.es> <87k2qrki45.fsf@wanadoo.es> <11a21a29-f4e7-4c75-9c63-b55f535d6a91@default> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1444710018 15646 80.91.229.3 (13 Oct 2015 04:20:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 04:20:18 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 13 06:20:17 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 1Zlr4S-0002IT-3k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 06:20:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60358 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zlr4Q-0001Di-UP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:20:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41732) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zlr4D-0001Dd-6O for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:20:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zlr49-0003l4-8E for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:20:01 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]:34529) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zlr49-0003kV-2G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 13 Oct 2015 00:19:57 -0400 Original-Received: by padhy16 with SMTP id hy16so8182428pad.1 for ; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:19:56 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=d2fVRbJ+6xTEAf0M3AgP3fwZKbn5xWFj/kXDzUboZFA=; b=gBQ5D0f3AD41fE73Dp47lFoo1LW5AdzY/3sCqIMpf8IvAUHKla8+lfZUlFT0eR5xYn 3LYIZ1TnNHbA4bWyuqYj92Los1XBBGrd/vTZ0pHeqe5q4jU7w3XKOE/M+THKULLKjjXy UQIkwLaJTbs/UxBvFdrcWEismOLNSuHMhvvTwtBmEB3Szt8qErnZymjrgVOld44zFqzu d8tZW5Vhn2fIevc31O77j+9kYbGMkXSx38Fcs657p+NOGsnq5SvWX5fkxRbN/U2air6O nS5RXcHamKndy05xZ22o2MRZTZndkndm9xQj/Ueaju8a9Xq9BXbF/+O6WZoawuM8KhI3 ZXdw== X-Received: by 10.68.109.2 with SMTP id ho2mr38782901pbb.158.1444709996191; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Vulcan.local (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id gd2sm897007pbb.41.2015.10.12.21.19.54 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:19:54 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id BB2E7F2C2CA4; Mon, 12 Oct 2015 21:19:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <11a21a29-f4e7-4c75-9c63-b55f535d6a91@default> (Drew Adams's message of "Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:40:46 -0700 (PDT)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c 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:191426 Archived-At: >>>>> Drew Adams writes: > I'm not for it. I guess it depends on just how "whenever someone needs fast > code" is interpreted, in practice. > > I do not wish to see Emacs core developers start opting for something like > this instead of using Lisp, with the excuse that they want their given code > to be "fast". If the gap between C (or a hypothetical Lisp-like), and Emacs Lisp, could be reduced to zero, I'd absolutely want everything to be in Emacs Lisp. That has been my dream for Emacs since I can remember, as I'm prefer playing on the Lisp side much more than the C side. I once tried to make Emacs Lisp my "primary language". The speed just wasn't there, not to mention a few other things (control over memory layout, direct access to file handles, integration with C libraries, etc). There are several things we'd need to turn Emacs Lisp into a general purpose, well-performing language, sufficient to replace all our C code. >> compilation into C for some of the functions we have in Emacs core > This is backwards from the direction we have been moving with Stefan and > Eli, which is toward moving core stuff from C to Lisp when possible. I want the C->Lisp direction. I was talking about proving any new candidate that might replace C, to show it provides a comparable implementation. >> (that is, reimplementing them as a proof of concept), > OTOH, if it's _only_ to test POC, then I suppose it's hard to object. But I > would not want to see compiling core Lisp code to the proposed language be > taken seriously. That would be a step backward, IMO. Don't worry, not suggesting that. :) > Leave such code in Lisp, please. And move more core code to Lisp, when that > is feasible. (As Eli has noted, most of the C code cannot feasibly be moved > to Lisp.) 100% agreed. > To whom are you trying to sell it? What's the point? Emacs is too slow? C is > too hard to maintain? The objective of the proposal is to not lose speed -- not necessarily to be any faster -- and to gain contributors by offering a language closer to (if not actually) Emacs Lisp. > To be clear, if it is a question of using such a language _only_ for the > equivalent of what C is _necessarily_ used for, it's hard to object. Yes, only for that. As much as is practical, code should be in Emacs Lisp. I fully back that as a strategy for the future, since C is not the dire necessity it once was, per Richard's cute poem. John