From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Kjetil S. Matheussen" Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.user Subject: Re: the future of Guile Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:08:10 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1196791769 17631 80.91.229.12 (4 Dec 2007 18:09:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 18:09:29 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-user@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Dec 04 19:09:39 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-user@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IzcCu-0003QZ-Td for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:09:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzcCe-0000oG-Ea for guile-user@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:09:04 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IzcCB-0000Rx-9b for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:08:35 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IzcC8-0000Py-N1 for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:08:34 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzcC8-0000Pj-BW for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:08:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-forward.uio.no ([129.240.10.42]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IzcC7-00010d-Ub for guile-user@gnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:08:32 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-mx8.uio.no ([129.240.10.38]) by pat.uio.no with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IzcBs-0006yN-7k; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:08:16 +0100 Original-Received: from bjo1-1x-dhcp290.studby.uio.no ([193.157.245.38]) by mail-mx8.uio.no with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IzcBr-0007S8-R0; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:08:15 +0100 X-X-Sender: kjetil@ttleush In-Reply-To: X-UiO-ClamAV-Virus: No X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-0.0, required=12.0, autolearn=disabled, AWL=-0.025) X-UiO-Scanned: A62A5EFC25C455D386EC79876F49C2152BC96FD7 X-UiO-SPAM-Test: remote_host: 193.157.245.38 spam_score: 0 maxlevel 200 minaction 2 bait 0 mail/h: 1 total 558 max/h 6 blacklist 0 greylist 0 ratelimit 0 X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: guile-user@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: General Guile related discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-user-bounces+guile-user=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.user:6324 Archived-At: "Marco Maggi": > > 4. If a garbage collector allows to remove the need for > "scm_remember_upto_here" it must be adopted even if it > makes Guile slower and it raises memory usage a bit (or > more than a bit). If we replace "should" with "must", I agree. Regarding the HBGC, a few nonscientific tests earlier this year showed that HBGC had _much_ lower latency than Guile's garbage collector. I am planning to measure the difference in latency properly quite soon, and if what I suspect is correct, that the HBGC has significant lower latency, this is another "should" for replacing the old one, even if the new one is a little bit slower and use a little bit more memory. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user