Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions

[Philippe Audebaud]

Hi,

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 04:07:13PM +0100, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
> [...]
> In last resort, we may include the whole scheme implementation
> in our sources, or statically link it with TeXmacs, as we already do.
> 
> Notice that, in the case of MzScheme, the license is OK : LGPL.
> 
> However, I am a bit tired of reorganizing Guile/Scheme stuff.
> I think that I will not switch to another scheme implementation
> in the near future. However, if there is a hacker around who
> wants to write a port to another Scheme implementation,
> then (s)he can count on my assistance. Almost everything is
> well localized now in src/Guile.
> [...]

by the  way, do you know  'gnucash' _is_ a  guile script ? The  whole package
consists of libraries,  glade files and scheme files.  Nothing else (but html
documentation). I did not notice before looking at

http://packages.debian.org/cgi-bin/search_contents.pl?page=14&word=gnucash&version=unstable&arch=i386&case=insensitive&searchmode=filelist

page 15 and following ones. So, is guile _really_ lacking performances ? 

My  personal feeling would  be rather  that performance  sensitive procedures
should be implemented  in C(++) while everything more  concerned with 'logic'
decision,  interactivity  with  the  user,  etc,  is  better  developped  and
maintained with the help of guile. (Or any Scheme incarnation at that point.)

Something similar to 'inlining vs function call' problem somehow ? Comments ?

Best,
-- 
Philippe Audebaud.