From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: rixed@happyleptic.org
Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user
Subject: Why 3 different evaluators?
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:00:05 +0100
Message-ID: <20111116050005.GA19554@happyleptic.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1321419230 17649 80.91.229.12 (16 Nov 2011 04:53:50 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:53:50 +0000 (UTC)
To: guile-user@gnu.org
Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 16 05:53:46 2011
Return-path: <guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org
Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17])
	by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1RQXVJ-0006G2-LV
	for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 05:53:45 +0100
Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52679 helo=lists.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>)
	id 1RQXVI-00027l-Tn
	for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:53:44 -0500
Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:35915)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rixed@happyleptic.org>) id 1RQXVC-0001xO-JD
	for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:53:39 -0500
Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rixed@happyleptic.org>) id 1RQXVB-0008Dq-IZ
	for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:53:38 -0500
Original-Received: from eneide.happyleptic.org ([213.251.171.101]:44114)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rixed@happyleptic.org>) id 1RQXVB-0008Db-DV
	for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:53:37 -0500
Original-Received: from rixed by eneide.happyleptic.org with local (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <rixed@happyleptic.org>) id 1RQXbR-000565-2q
	for guile-user@gnu.org; Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:00:05 +0100
Mail-Followup-To: rixed@happyleptic.org, guile-user@gnu.org
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3)
X-Received-From: 213.251.171.101
X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: General Guile related discussions <guile-user.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guile-user>,
	<mailto:guile-user-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user>
List-Post: <mailto:guile-user@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guile-user-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user>,
	<mailto:guile-user-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:8953
Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.user/8953>

According to the doc, guile currently maintain 3 evaluators:

- the new VM
- an evaluator written in scheme
- the old C evaluator, used for bootstrapping the compiler.

That's a lot of code just to bootstrap the compiler.  Why not bootstrapping the
compiler from either previous installed guile or (as fall-back) some provided
.go bytecode instead? Wouldn't that make guile code significantly simpler to
maintain and faster to compile?