[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?
From: |
Per Abrahamsen |
Subject: |
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it? |
Date: |
Sun, 09 Dec 2001 13:37:25 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/21.1 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) |
Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:
> I don't think it is worth while working on optimization in the Emacs
> Lisp compiler. It could be an unlimited time sink, drawing effort
> away from features that benefit the user into something users will
> hardly notice.
I believe Gnus users will notice, Gnus is often CPU bound (although
not necessarily by the compiler) and has a reputation for being slow.
Also, I had to give one of the most complex options
(nnmail-split-fancy) the customize type "sexp", because the structured
type resulted in an unusable slow UI. And that is bound by the Lisp
compiler.
I think speed is important, not as much for the things we do today,
but for the things we don't do because the byte code is too slow.
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, (continued)
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Eli Zaretskii, 2001/12/09
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/10
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/10
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Per Abrahamsen, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/12
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Per Abrahamsen, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Sam Steingold, 2001/12/11
- Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/12
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Richard Stallman, 2001/12/08
Re: Lexical binding -- do we really need it?, Miles Bader, 2001/12/09