Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language

[Ken Raeburn]

> The thought of an Elisp->C compiler that could produce well-performing code is
> very interesting. I starting working on an LLVM JIT for Emacs bytecode at one
> point -- got as far as hello world -- and it was not terribly difficult. The
> main reason I stopped is that it didn't help performance enough. The slowness
> imposed by constantly looking up symbol names at global scope, due to dynamic
> binding, dominated the profiling results.
> 
> A subset of Elisp that doesn't have dynamic binding might well produce code
> that could be of use to us, and wouldn't need any of the macros we currently
> use to communicate between the two languages.

Do you think the introduction of lexical binding support changes the balance 
much?
(Or was your work after lexical binding was added?)

Ken