From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Julian Graham" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:01:05 -0400 Message-ID: <2bc5f8210710300801o6de398aeg968bcb73bb0cc5e@mail.gmail.com> References: <818B5317-4F09-46F3-9376-43292CEB3C16@iro.umontreal.ca> <47229C5E.8070406@emf.net> <87640rm7ec.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87hckbkpho.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87d4uykkes.fsf@laas.fr> <87ejfd7fnq.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <877il57wyt.fsf@laas.fr> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1193756491 6430 80.91.229.12 (30 Oct 2007 15:01:31 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 15:01:31 +0000 (UTC) To: "Guile Development" Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 30 16:01:33 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Imsay-0008Do-IO for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:01:32 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Imsap-0003W8-9e for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:01:23 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Imsaf-0003Ra-Sg for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:01:13 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Imsab-0003Oi-Mr for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:01:11 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Imsab-0003OY-4I for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:01:09 -0400 Original-Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com ([64.233.182.190]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Imsaa-0007Wb-RU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 11:01:09 -0400 Original-Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id f5so1841961nfh for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:01:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=4QzlB/kt08g9DgzGCFrbeVARqGNTYbUirw14zdrO6Jo=; b=DXHuqK6jtZw8ytmop3cq3ryDmWdQtJpRCigpJfCcysB8+LpIBVcRN7UMbg0GFR6DtOz8OCzj12kuEsNVqSfAMoYJ7+2xaUjORo+mqWTyJWzo3uYRPXRaEVRvYZ3o4VtZcPX/aesPYQlYIv2XODRkZ3D8+Ppeqvh8lzE6tvDNTsY= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=OdquuW4wTnoxFdzugEoDZD1F4HdDIIK/UBdxHduF4iLLORcgupDQQqjtIvlKznbrIeckm2fUWniaz4YWKroWbKvn4KBzVPimk72QrqDXNumbVvNiZJOiD3Mzws5QoWOn4QJzl3O4OF9YzPILbA0IE+ksA6ytl7uLpCfPgr4ki6Y= Original-Received: by 10.86.95.20 with SMTP id s20mr5762828fgb.1193756465963; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:01:05 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.86.100.19 with HTTP; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:01:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <877il57wyt.fsf@laas.fr> Content-Disposition: inline X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:6870 > When I started using Guile, I was fully in sync with the "embeddable > library" approach, which means that I'd write, say, 75% of an > application in C, and then arrange to have the remainder written in > Scheme in an extensible fashion. > > But I started really enjoying Scheme and wanting to write less C, more > Scheme. So why bother writing C at all when I could avoid it? Well, > for "performance reasons". And what are those "performance reasons"? > The interpreter is pretty slow, which is definitely not due to inherent > limitations of the language, but to the implementation. > > I'm convinced that it's possible to write a Scheme interpreter much > faster than ours. So I think that's one route we should take in 1.9. > The next step would be to have a compiler (to byte code, to C, > whatever). However, I think the interpreter should keep playing a > central role in Guile (because it always did, and because it's often > convenient to work with an interpreter), which is why I would consider > improving/rewriting the interpreter a major goal for 1.9. > > Maybe we should start a discussion about what we'd like to see in 1.9? > :-) Well, for what it's worth, faster live "interpretation" of Scheme is really important to me, whether that means some kind of Scheme JIT compilation a la GNU Lightning or whatever. I'm still fairly wed to being able to "script" my C code with Scheme dynamically, so I hope Guile's not moving away from that significantly. Other non-specific, poorly-researched desires for 1.9: * Faster GC (this is probably pretty similar to "faster interpretation") * Integrated debugging and profiling tools * Guile was initially proposed as a multi-language scripting platform; is that still part of the mission? * Not related to 1.9 itself, but maybe a cleanup / redesign of the web page, including a cleanup of active projects, better integration with Savannah for bug tracking, etc. * Thorough updating of the documentation * Integration with Free Software VMs -- Bigloo currently lets you compile Scheme to CIL; it would be neat if you could do the same with Guile and then run on top of DotGNU. Or Kaffe. Or anything else. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel