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: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:33:20 -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> <87k2qknmel.fsf@tromey.com> <87a8rfo6k5.fsf@tromey.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445326515 11484 80.91.229.3 (20 Oct 2015 07:35:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 07:35:15 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Tom Tromey Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 20 09:35:06 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 1ZoRRp-0007sN-Be for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:35:05 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44302 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoRRn-0004M6-Fk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:35:03 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55250) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoRRf-0004Lb-7t for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:34:58 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoRRT-0002vZ-FF for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:34:46 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x22e.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22e]:33789) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoRRT-0002vK-9p for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 03:34:43 -0400 Original-Received: by pabrc13 with SMTP id rc13so13258874pab.0 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:34:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=BPinTKRsgbDrwlhOUrFSGKmjgflhMB27pu7dtDmle/w=; b=KxQi9bUOsNUk+g2Td+06470IkBxX2C3vGBFnzZwdhXSHYGq5ByVofhaGVZwiqqv9ZL JEbZoK7yWpw1daXBjfiTJmh/hcwyvhzdxe1YfzV5GOgd1j565/PDqrwyCSiQPyF5je3J SNMcGAqhfseRXj9IWMtOpuuLlVGfyGphcbCJze/lLOohP+2JH6I/uCd13swJ2WZeoeWh FsuVzdiB4UNpDzVCfnVbd0OMd3jmTvap+zuJajDnBCoc+cSj+vQBnoK9LCSjWRfopI3b UvevPYCg/m0lc9DErXYHNct1CSKHaLZt1wyhKNbD7/0XWC+C7J0QDEIYGz+4OVePVd44 9b5g== X-Received: by 10.67.1.73 with SMTP id be9mr2284784pad.35.1445326482687; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:34:42 -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 c3sm1990071pbu.24.2015.10.20.00.34.40 (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:34:41 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 171D1F577FD5; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 00:34:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87a8rfo6k5.fsf@tromey.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:55:54 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , 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::22e 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:192155 Archived-At: >>>>> Tom Tromey writes: > I don't have performance numbers, but of course it will be faster, in the > same way that Emacs C code is faster than the corresponding lisp. I know the > bytecode/LLVM experiment was not; but I think that is because the Emacs > bytecode is a particularly bad format. When it comes to performance, I don't believe in judging by reason. But I'm eager to see your numbers! If there are issues that make you think this work is unwanted, please bring them to me (maybe on IRC), and we can discuss them. I wouldn't want to see something of potentially great value get dropped. John