[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions
From: |
david |
Subject: |
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions |
Date: |
Wed, 5 Mar 2003 18:37:32 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4i |
On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 12:14:29PM +0100, Joris van der Hoeven wrote:
>
> > I think we should not forget that GUILE is a language for _extension_.
> > Not a language for application development. For example, it is fully
> > interpreted. In that respect, I think that TeXmacs is actually
> > _abusing_ GUILE.
>
> This is a surprising statement, because you are the principal person
> who urged me to rely more on Guile for the top-level interface.
:-)
Well, I am very happy that more and more things get into the GUILE
layer, and I will continue to push into that direction. As I said,
abusing GUILE is no philosophical problem to me. What is philosophical
problem though is having policy code written C++ while it should be
written in a higher level language.
When I say texmacs is abusing GUILE, I just point out that GUILE is
notoriously slow. Anyway, I do not care much about long loading times
for texmacs. Complex application through the world have long loading
times.
Do anyone mind the long loading times of GIMP? I do not think so. As
Nix noted, this kind of application is generally left running for a
long time.
It may help the users perception if TeXmacs had some kind of
splash-screen with a display of the current action, like GIMP, so
users will rather think "wow! there is a lot in there" (as when
loading GIMP) instead of "well, so much time for so little" (as when
loading Gecko).
> > That is not a philosophical problem to me. But the more texmacs will
> > use GUILE as a application language (instead of a mere extension
> > language) the more it will make sense to use a more efficient
> > implementation of Scheme.
>
> Do you know of more efficient implementations,
> which can also be used of extension languages?
I will look for that.
The problem is knowing what is the requirement for a scheme
implementation to be used as an extension language.
I suppose that is:
-- easy to bind to C
-- the full language in available in runtime
-- no need for an external compiler (I suppose you do not want
texmacs to depend on gcc :-)
-- module system supporting namespaces
> Maybe you mean that we should compile part of the scheme programs.
> Are scheme compilers good at dealing with macros?
I see no reason why there should be any problem with macros, as long
as you stick to purely functional macros.
- [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Joris van der Hoeven, 2003/03/03
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Philippe Audebaud, 2003/03/03
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Leo, 2003/03/04
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Joris van der Hoeven, 2003/03/05
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, david, 2003/03/05
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Joris van der Hoeven, 2003/03/05
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions,
david <=
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Karl M. Hegbloom, 2003/03/05
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Daniel Andor, 2003/03/05
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Karl M. Hegbloom, 2003/03/05
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Daniel Andor, 2003/03/06
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Ralf Treinen, 2003/03/06
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Karl M. Hegbloom, 2003/03/10
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Leo, 2003/03/05
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Karl M. Hegbloom, 2003/03/05
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Joris van der Hoeven, 2003/03/06
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions, Nix N. Nix, 2003/03/06