Re: Guile optimizations slowing down the program?

["Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide" <arne_bab@web.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1539 bytes --]


Jean Abou Samra <jean@abou-samra.fr> writes:

>>> There is also a felicitous feedback effect in that because the
>>> baseline compiler is much smaller than the CPS compiler, it takes less
>>> time to macro-expand — https://wingolog.org/archives/2020/06/03/a-baseline-compiler-for-guile
>
> As far as I understand, this is about the speed of compilation. For
> the reason explained above, it doesn't factor into the speed of
> LilyPond.

The speed of compilation is only part of it. The blog post also shows
that the optimizations gain factor 4 in speed for the compiled code, but
if there are lots of macros to expand in the *.ly files, unoptimized
code (which is smaller, because it is higher-level) might actually be
faster.

This as all highly speculative on my side, though …

> Thanks for responding!

In my opinion Lilypond is one of the most important Guile-Programs.
Since I started running Guix as Distro, Lilypond is no longer *the* most
important Guile program for me (since without Guix my system would
simply not run), but Lilypond is still the one tool I really need.

All the other Guile-using utilities I have are nice to have conveniences
(or code I wrote myself). Lilypond is the only mission-critical tool for
which I would not be able to find a replacement, because I require it to
improve my songbook. There’s just nothing like it.

Thank you very much for working on Lilypond!

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein,
ohne es zu merken.
draketo.de

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 1125 bytes --]