[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language
From: |
David Kastrup |
Subject: |
Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language |
Date: |
Sat, 17 Oct 2015 19:42:55 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> David Kastrup <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
>>
>>> I haven't followed the whole discussion but I'd like to remind that
>>> GuileEmacs already runs currently, and from what I know none of the
>>> problems it faces are related to string handling. It just lets Elisp
>>> strings be a separate data type.
>>>
>>> I guess the discussion was about rewriting bigger parts of Emacs in
>>> Guile-Scheme, which might be one possible way to go forward but not
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> Most of the benefits in e.g. http://www.emacswiki.org/emacs/GuileEmacs
>>> apply without having to solve the string problem. Specifically, from
>>> the overview section, the first two points and half of the third should
>>> apply I think.
>>
>> The first two points concern efficiency. Emacs is _all_ about working
>> with strings, and the last report of GuileEmacs stated something like
>> GuileEmacs being about an order of magnitude slower specifically because
>> of having to special-case Emacs strings and buffers.
>>
>> Emacs is first and foremost an editor. Substantial increases of
>> efficiency in most general programming areas at the cost of abysmal
>> performance in text processing are not going to make the race.
>
> I think you're misremembering.
So performance is comparable?
> It might be that you have strings in mind because not being able to
> serialize Elisp strings means having to compile everything at each
> startup, making startup slow. And maybe you have buffers in mind
> because buffer-local variables and other weird binding semantics of
> Elisp need special handling.
>
> Neither is related to the run-time performance of string handling, of
> course.
>
> Hmm, what would be a good benchmark of Elisp string handling that
> won't be affected by the performance of dynamic binding of variables
> or other such things? I'd like to just test it instead of
> hypothesize.
Most relevant candidates are likely file load/save, string display and
stuff like regexp searches through buffers.
--
David Kastrup
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, (continued)
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Stephen J. Turnbull, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language,
David Kastrup <=
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, John Wiegley, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/17
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Richard Stallman, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Tom Tromey, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, John Wiegley, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, Eli Zaretskii, 2015/10/18
- Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language, David Kastrup, 2015/10/18