[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Guile bugs
From: |
Marko Rauhamaa |
Subject: |
Re: Guile bugs |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Jul 2017 20:12:50 +0300 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux) |
address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer"):
> Marko Rauhamaa <address@hidden> writes:
>> I wonder, though, if doing that is fast enough in Scheme code.
>
> Since Guile supports syntax-case, the "macro API" of the library can
> be used so the library itself adds absolutely zero runtime overhead.
No doubt it's as fast as Guile can be for the API. However, you'll need
to have the encoding/decoding machinery ultimately executed in Scheme.
Compare this with Python's struct.(un)pack(), for example, which lets
the "machine code" handle the bulk encoding/decoding of a record.
Instead of binary, one could use S-expressions, of course, but then
you'd need to know the maximum length of the encoding up front.
Heck, maybe your bulk RAM store should be implemented with straight
non-GC malloc...
Marko
- Re: Guile bugs, (continued)
- Re: Guile bugs, Ludovic Courtès, 2017/07/20
- Re: Guile bugs, Marko Rauhamaa, 2017/07/20
- Re: Guile bugs, Mark H Weaver, 2017/07/21
- Re: Guile bugs, Marko Rauhamaa, 2017/07/21
- Re: Guile bugs, Chris Vine, 2017/07/21
- Re: Guile bugs, Marko Rauhamaa, 2017/07/21
- Re: Guile bugs, Mark H Weaver, 2017/07/21
- Re: Guile bugs, Marko Rauhamaa, 2017/07/21
- Re: Guile bugs, David Kastrup, 2017/07/21
- Re: Guile bugs, Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer, 2017/07/21
- Re: Guile bugs,
Marko Rauhamaa <=
- Re: Guile bugs, Matt Wette, 2017/07/21