Andy> My $0.02 based on almost zero understanding ;) Andy> I am assuming that Michael is talking about replacing the underlying Andy> execution engine so that we would benefit from basically increased Andy> performance with the existing elisp remaining largely unchanged? The emphasis is slightly different: I want to keep full Elisp support, while introducing an additional substrate meant to slowly replace Elisp. Preferrably, Elisp will simply run inside the substrate. Andy> My impression is that a scheme engine would be smaller and Andy> faster than a clisp engine. Smaller, definitely. Faster is a matter of implementation technology, and pretty independent of that choice. CLISP as well as most existing Scheme engines are plenty fast for our purposes. There are native-code implementations for Scheme and CLISP which are plenty faster. Andy> Whatever the case I think the replacement should be as small and as fast as Andy> possible rather than as feature rich as possible. :-) -- Cheers =8-} Chipsy Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla