This is the mail archive of the
cgen@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the CGEN project.
Re: Implementation Language
- To: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
- Subject: Re: Implementation Language
- From: Ben Elliston <bje at redhat dot com>
- Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 09:22:19 +1000 (EST)
- cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche at redhat dot com>, cgen at sources dot redhat dot com
Modulo: we can write in C those parts we wish to as long as a portable
Scheme version also exists [e.g. cos.c, not that I necessarily want to
keep it in the long run, but rather as an example of what I mean
here.]
So does Guile follow a similar philosophy to Tcl -- to write performance
critical aspects in C and provide hooks into Scheme?
> Do we have any performance issues with Guile?
Yes!!!
Can you expand? I don't really consider the performance of code generation
to be that critical -- look at G++ these days.
But they're fun. :-)
I envy your energy, Doug.
And after we have at least one more big usage under our belt [dynamic
compilation?] and we have a proper function unit description [plus
related paraphenalia] I think we should take a step back and review
everything from the ground up.
Sounds reasonable. Post-evaluation is an important exercise.
Ben