[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Why tree-sitter instead of Semantic? (was Re: CC Mode with font-lock

From: Akib Azmain Turja
Subject: Re: Why tree-sitter instead of Semantic? (was Re: CC Mode with font-lock-maximum-decoration 2)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2022 10:41:16 +0600

<tomas@tuxteam.de> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 10:00:43PM +0600, Akib Azmain Turja wrote:
> [...]
>> It's hard for any compiled language to beat C code, and I believe it's
>> *impossible* for any interpreted language to do that.  And if it somehow
>> does that, I would believe that the result is *hard-coded* in it.
> [...]
> I think this is too simplistic. There are known (small) cases where
> (compiled) Common Lisp beats C code, or where LuaJit [1] does (don't
> forget: a JIT knows things about your program a compiler can't). At
> the other end of the scale (the very complex), where you end up
> writing a whole garbage collector in your C app, it will be pretty
> hard to beat one of the modern GCs you'll find in Schemes or
> Javascripts.
> So the answer to this is most probably "it depends" :)
> Cheers
> [1] 
> https://wingolog.org/archives/2014/09/02/high-performance-packet-filtering-with-pflua

Yeah, it's possible for very optimized Brainfuck code to beat poor C
code. Emacs has a native compiler, and AFAIK it's a ahead of time (AOT)
compiler.  If you really need a JIT, do performance-critical things in
Guile Scheme and use results from Emacs.

Akib Azmain Turja

Find me on Mastodon at @akib@hostux.social.

This message is signed by me with my GnuPG key.  Its fingerprint is:

    7001 8CE5 819F 17A3 BBA6  66AF E74F 0EFA 922A E7F5

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]