From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:50:18 +0100 Organization: LAAS-CNRS Message-ID: <877il57wyt.fsf@laas.fr> References: <818B5317-4F09-46F3-9376-43292CEB3C16@iro.umontreal.ca> <200710261850.l9QIo8Vu017241@garbo.cs.indiana.edu> <47229C5E.8070406@emf.net> <87640rm7ec.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87hckbkpho.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> <87d4uykkes.fsf@laas.fr> <87ejfd7fnq.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1193737918 17810 80.91.229.12 (30 Oct 2007 09:51:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:51:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Elf , Guile Development To: Neil Jerram Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 30 10:52:01 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 1ImnlP-0003Bg-5c for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:51:59 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ImnlF-0008Qd-RF for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:51:49 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Imnl8-0008QY-29 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:51:42 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Imnl6-0008Pp-KS for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:51:41 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Imnl6-0008Pk-FD for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:51:40 -0400 Original-Received: from laas.laas.fr ([140.93.0.15]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Imnl6-0007kk-5L for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:51:40 -0400 Original-Received: from messiaen.laas.fr (messiaen [IPv6:2001:660:6602:0:230:65ff:fed4:9d20]) by laas.laas.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id l9U9oH8V007710; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:50:17 +0100 (MET) Original-Received: by messiaen.laas.fr (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:50:18 +0100 X-URL: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 9 Brumaire an 216 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEB1F5364 X-PGP-Key: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu Mail-Followup-To: Neil Jerram , Guile Development , Elf In-Reply-To: <87ejfd7fnq.fsf@ossau.uklinux.net> (Neil Jerram's message of "Mon\, 29 Oct 2007 21\:51\:53 +0000") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: -0.001 () NO_RELAYS X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang at CNRS-LAAS on IPv6:2001:660:6602::2 X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by laas.laas.fr id l9U9oH8V007710 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) 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:6869 Hi Neil, Neil Jerram writes: > ludovic.courtes@laas.fr (Ludovic Court=E8s) writes: >> With that goal in mind, the pure >> interpreter approach is not sustainable > > ... but I don't see what you mean by this. He, that was sort of a teaser. ;-) 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? :-) Thanks, Ludovic. _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel