[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: In support of guile-emacs
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: In support of guile-emacs |
Date: |
Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:13:53 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) |
Hello, Taylan.
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 02:54:15PM +0200, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer wrote:
> address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> > Alan Mackenzie <address@hidden> writes:
> >> [...]
> >>> (let loop ((i 0) (s 0))
> >>> (if (<= i 10000000)
> >>> (loop (+ i 1) (+ s i))
> >>> (format #t "~s" s)))
> >>> Takes about 0.50s.
> >> So, we're talking about a speed up of around 13%/25% on a simple loop
> >> test, depending on whether or not an idiomatic Scheme formulation is
> >> used. Given that Guile compiled elisp wouldn't be optimised in this way,
> >> it would guess that the 13% is nearer the mark. But it would take a few
> >> real life tests to measure this better.
> > Indeed, I don't think any conclusions should be drawn from this.
> While we still shouldn't draw any conclusions, I've repeated the test
> with master branch Guile now, since it's apparently packaged for Guile
> (as "guile-next") and thus trivial to install...
> The idiomatic Scheme version:
> (let loop ((i 0) (s 0))
> (if (<= i 10000000)
> (loop (+ i 1) (+ s i))
> (format #t "~s" s)))
> ~0.27s
> The Elisp-transcribed-to-Guile version:
> (let ((i 0) (s 0))
> (while (<= i 10000000)
> (set! s (+ s i))
> (set! i (1+ i)))
> (format #t "~s" s))
> ~0.36s
> So the idiomatic version provides a ~2.3x speedup, and the literal
> transcription ~1.7x. I'm not sure what exact percent notation you used,
> but if it's (x - y) / y * 100 for original time x and new time y, then
> these are 130% and 70% which sounds pretty great!
I think I used ((slow time) / (fast time) - 1) * 100, which is probably
an equivalent formula. But, what the heck?
I'm impressed. A factor of 2.3, or 1.7 speedup in elisp would be very
worthwhile, IMAO.
> I'd also like to point out that this means the switch from Guile 2.0 to
> 2.2 (master) entails a 50% speedup of the Elisp-transcribed version (and
> a 85% speedup of the idiomatic Scheme version). This is *still* a silly
> loop test, but nevertheless, those are impressive numbers, which I think
> gives me a bit of defensibility in what I had said optimistically with
> regard to Guile performance having a bright future. :-)
Go for it!
> Taylan
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- Re: In support of guile-emacs, (continued)
- Re: In support of guile-emacs, Alan Mackenzie, 2015/10/19
- Re: In support of guile-emacs, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/19
- Re: In support of guile-emacs, Alan Mackenzie, 2015/10/20
- Re: In support of guile-emacs, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/20
- Re: In support of guile-emacs, John Wiegley, 2015/10/20
- Re: In support of guile-emacs, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2015/10/21
- Re: In support of guile-emacs,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: In support of guile-emacs, David Kastrup, 2015/10/20
- Re: In support of guile-emacs, David Kastrup, 2015/10/19
Re: In support of guile-emacs, Tom, 2015/10/19