[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why is guile still so slow?
From: |
rixed |
Subject: |
Re: Why is guile still so slow? |
Date: |
Thu, 13 Oct 2011 08:23:10 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) |
-[ Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 01:56:32AM +0200, Jose A. Ortega Ruiz ]----
> Couldn't you use the FFI?
While FFI makes indeed things simplier, it's only one part of the story.
Scheme/C integration involves also:
- main() func can be C or Scheme (in order to slowly goes from C to Scheme)
- Scheme runtime must support posix threads so that the important C threads
are not interrupted by evaluation/compilation/GC
> I haven't used Guile's yet, but hooking to
> inotify in Racket was a breeze...
Nor do I have used FFI from guile myself, but I've seen it used in Andy's
guile-sqlite3 bindings and it's nice. See it here for instance:
https://gitorious.org/guile-sqlite3/guile-sqlite3/blobs/master/sqlite3.scm
> Of course, if C-level performance is
> a requirement, you'd need to switch to a CL compiler ;-)
Many CL compilers are wonderful but there is no reason why a Scheme
compiler can't be made faster. Anyway, you'd have to get rid of the
dynamic type checks and the GC to match C speed, so we won't see this
happen soon.
- Why is guile still so slow?, John Lewis, 2011/10/12
- Re: Why is guile still so slow?, rixed, 2011/10/12
- Re: Why is guile still so slow?, Andy Wingo, 2011/10/13
- A bit further toward the flamewar, rixed, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Ludovic Courtès, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Andy Wingo, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Linas Vepstas, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Mike Gran, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Linas Vepstas, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, address@hidden, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Ian Price, 2011/10/13
- Re: A bit further toward the flamewar, Andy Wingo, 2011/10/14