[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the future of Guile
From: |
Kjetil S. Matheussen |
Subject: |
Re: the future of Guile |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Dec 2007 19:08:10 +0100 (CET) |
"Marco Maggi":
4. If a garbage collector allows to remove the need for
"scm_remember_upto_here" it must be adopted even if it
makes Guile slower and it raises memory usage a bit (or
more than a bit).
If we replace "should" with "must", I agree.
Regarding the HBGC, a few nonscientific tests earlier this year
showed that HBGC had _much_ lower latency than Guile's garbage
collector.
I am planning to measure the difference in latency properly
quite soon, and if what I suspect is correct, that the HBGC
has significant lower latency, this is another "should"
for replacing the old one, even if the new one is a little
bit slower and use a little bit more memory.
- the future of Guile, Marco Maggi, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Stephen Compall, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Ludovic Courtès, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Neil Jerram, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Andy Wingo, 2007/12/05
- Re: the future of Guile, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2007/12/06
- Re: the future of guile, Daniel Llorens del Río, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Marco Maggi, 2007/12/05
- Re: the future of Guile, Mike Gran, 2007/12/05