This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Is guile byte-code compiled?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: Is guile byte-code compiled?
- From: Keith Wright <email@example.com>
- Date: Sun, 23 May 1999 00:42:58 -0400
- CC: firstname.lastname@example.org
- References: <199905222335.QAA19370@arathorn>
> From: Michael Vanier <email@example.com>
> I'd like to know if guile is byte-code compiled, or if not, why not.
It is not. Nobody has written a byte-compiler that is faster than
the memoizing interpreter currently in use. It sort of compiles as
it goes, but not to byte codes.
> impression is that it isn't, but I know that this isn't fundamental to lisp
> systems (e.g. emacs lisp can be byte-compiled). I suspect that it will be
> difficult to match the speed of other scripting languages without some form
> of byte-compiling. Anyone care to enlighten me?
What's so magic about bytes?
It is hard for me to believe that it is not possible for a byte code
interpreter to run faster than the current memoizing interpretter,
but neither is the first one you throw together guaranteed to be faster.
All the same, I like the idea of a byte code interpretter, because
eval.c is really hard to understand.
There is the hobbit compiler, which compiles guile to C, but it does
not accept exactly the same language as the interpretter.
-- Keith Wright <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Programmer in Chief, Free Computer Shop <http://www.free-comp-shop.com>
--- Food, Shelter, Source code. ---