Re: Faster lisp engine
>>>> "Chipsy" == Michael Sperber
<sperber(a)Informatik.Uni-Tuebingen.De> writes:
>>>> "Glynn" == Glynn Clements
<glynn(a)sensei.co.uk> writes:
Glynn> Olivier Galibert wrote:
>> > By the way, I don't think that the lisp engine
itself is that much of
>> > a bottleneck in XEmacs, so we should not be looking at a replacement
>> > lisp engine specifically for a blazing fast XEmacs.
>>
>> I think that lexical scoping would make a huge difference by allowing
>> much tighter optimizations of the compiled code.
Glynn> Strong typing probably wouldn't hurt either.
Chipsy> Performance-wise, no.
I guess this was my entry for the obscure comment of the day: What I
meant was: Strong typing doesn't buy you much in way of performance.
I think Martin was right in the analysis that Elisp isn't the
bottleneck. However, a faster substrate would allow us to move
*a lot* of stuff currently written in C into the substrate.
The one single thing which would really make substrate performance rip
would be a native-code compiler.
--
Cheers =8-} Chipsy
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla