[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts
From: |
Alan Mackenzie |
Subject: |
Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts |
Date: |
Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:16:53 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) |
Hello, Andreas.
On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 10:39:26AM +0200, Andreas Röhler wrote:
> On 01.07.2016 10:13, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >> From: Andreas Röhler <address@hidden>
> >> Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 10:03:07 +0200
> >> last years parts of C code have been switched into the Lisp area. There
> >> are pro and cons, the cons .....
I think you meant "pros" here.
> >> ..... seems to be an easier maintenance, to protect against the
> >> lack of skilled C-developers.
Of course, that fails to protect against any lack of skilled Emacs Lisp
developers. Which is more likely?
> >> The backside is a general slowness, not felt in details of such a
> >> change, but cumulated.Would liketo see this strategy changed.r
Can you quantify this alleged general slowness? It could well be (and I
suspect it is) that the rewriting of certain parts of Emacs in Lisp have
had a negligible, unmeasureable impact on Emacs's speed.
Can you be more specific, and identify some of these C -> Lisp changes
which you suspect have slowed Emacs? To be honest, I'm not aware of any
of these changes at all, with just a vague background awareness they may
have taken place.
> >> Rather focus at a fast and small core. Reduce the rate of changes
> >> maybe. My preferred Emacs must not provide everything, but be quick
> >> and reliable and easy to extend.
I think it is all these things, though there is room for improvement
(which is steadily happening).
> >> Emacs Lisp seen as designed for the user-space.
> > To compare performance, we need a performance test suite. Without
> > measuring the impact of these changes, we cannot rationally discuss
> > the alleged slowdown.
> You need a number to believe function running from Emacs Lisp is slower
> than an implementation in C?
You need numbers to show that any such difference is important enough to
suffer the disadvantages of C over Lisp for (slower, more difficult,
maintenance, mainly).
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
- C and Emacs Lisp code parts, Andreas Röhler, 2016/07/01
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/07/01
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, Andreas Röhler, 2016/07/01
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts,
Alan Mackenzie <=
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, Andreas Röhler, 2016/07/01
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/07/01
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, John Wiegley, 2016/07/05
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, Andreas Röhler, 2016/07/06
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, Andreas Röhler, 2016/07/06
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, Phillip Lord, 2016/07/06
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, John Wiegley, 2016/07/01
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, Andreas Röhler, 2016/07/01
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/07/01
- Re: C and Emacs Lisp code parts, Andreas Röhler, 2016/07/01