Re: In support of guile-emacs

[David Kastrup]

Daniel Colascione <address@hidden> writes:

> On 10/19/2015 03:24 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> Hello, Xue.
>> 
>> On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 09:07:59AM +0800, Xue Fuqiao wrote:
>> 
>>> guile-emacs replaces Emacs's own Emacs Lisp engine with Guile's (without
>>> breaking backward compatibility).  So:
>> 
>>> * Emacs Lisp will execute faster (Guile VM bytecode is more efficient)
>> 
>> Just as a matter of interest, approximately how much faster is Guile
>> bytecode than Emacs bytecode?  Are we talking about 10%, 20%, 50%, a
>> factor of 2, or even higher?
>> 
>> If that speed increase was significant, it might be worth incorporating
>> Guile's bytecode into Emacs just for that reason, regardless of any of
>> the other stuff.
>
> Or simply making completely independent and custom-tailored
> improvements to the Emacs bytecode compiler and interpreter
> itself. There's no reason to imagine that the only way to improve
> performance there is to move to a completely different runtime.

There is no question that everything that can be done independently of
Emacs can also be done inside of Emacs.

If someone does it.  The point of decoupling work on Emacs from work on
the compiling techniques within Emacs is to get more work done from the
total set of people than if everybody reinvents and designs and
maintains his own wheels.

-- 
David Kastrup