Re: Emacs rewrite in a maintainable language

[Daniel Colascione]

On 10/13/2015 03:13 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
> John Wiegley <address@hidden> writes:
> 
>>>>>>> Ken Raeburn <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>>> The main reason I stopped is that it didn't help performance enough. The
>>>> slowness imposed by constantly looking up symbol names at global scope, due
>>>> to dynamic binding, dominated the profiling results.
>>
>>> Do you think the introduction of lexical binding support changes the balance
>>> much? (Or was your work after lexical binding was added?)
>>
>> I think it should really help performance, but I haven't measured yet.
> 
> I don't think it will really help performance all that much if you
> measure it now since the inescapable cost of establishing and resolving
> dynamic bindings at every let or function boundary has both made certain
> optimizations mostly pointless as well as lending preference to a
> programming style using iteration and setq rather than recursive
> techniques.

Maybe it's blasphemous to say so, but I often find iterate code much
more comprehensible and easily modified than equivalent logic written
recursively.

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature