Re: State of LilyPond with Guile 2.2

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Sonntag, dem 11.04.2021 um 20:04 +0200 schrieb Thomas Morley:
> Am So., 11. Apr. 2021 um 19:37 Uhr schrieb Jonas Hahnfeld via
> Discussions on LilyPond development <lilypond-devel@gnu.org>:
> > 
> > Am Sonntag, dem 11.04.2021 um 18:04 +0200 schrieb Han-Wen Nienhuys:
> > > I wonder if it isn't more practical to fork guile 1.8, and stick it
> > > into our tree as a submodule, and always build lilypond against the
> > > in-tree version. We'd be up for the maintenance on the 1.8 branch, but
> > > it might well be less work than keeping up with the churn that newer
> > > GUILE versions bring us.
> > > 
> > 
> > I had already replied that I don't like that option; it was always a
> > given for me that LilyPond would move on. Guile 2.2 also makes binary
> > distribution much nicer (because there no more shared srfi libraries,
> > so lilypond can be linked as one static executable) and makes it
> > possible to offer 64 bit executables for Windows.
> > 
> > But given the reactions, I'll reduce activity on my work towards Guile
> > 2.2...
> 
> Jonas,
> 
> once the startup delay and overall lower tempo is reduced to a
> reasonable amount I'm for moving on to Guile-2, if not then Guile-3
> (yes, I've read what you wrote about Guile-3).

So, that was the main question of the message (sorry if that got hidden
in the lengthy text and many numbers): What is "reasonable"? I think
the numbers I showed are reasonable, but that's certainly subjective.
Yes, they are slower than Guile 1.8 but there'll be a trade-off at some
point.

Jonas

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part