Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, 30 May 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote: > > | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > | > The slowness of GCL is another irritating aspect of working on current > | > Axiom code base. > | > > | > Please, don't tell me you're not concerned about wasting developer's time. > | > | Oh no. Though GCL may not be super-duper-fast when it comes to compile > | times, there are may opportunities for speeding up the build which at > | the same time have other benefits. For example, eliminating dead > | code. I looked at the email archives w.r.t saturn and the majority of > | the posts were discussing how to remove the connection to the system so > | that a windows build was possible. > > I don't know if that is of any help but Axiom.build-improvements builds and > works with $saturn set to the same value as for Unix systems.
Ok, noted. Thanks for the insight. > ... > > | Im sure you could aticipate this, but I suspect that getting Boot out > | of the picture and eliminating (understand, this is just my > | perspective) a significant layer of indirection would _significantly_ > | reduce compile times. I would not be surprised if a lisp rewrite saw > | the SPAD compiler build time drop to 15-20 minutes (I think this is a > | conservative estimate). If done properly, the algebra build could > | drop significantly as well. > | > | In short, I dont blame GCL for axioms long build times. > > In all my measurements, the Boot-to-Lisp translation takes up non-significant > part of the build. All the measurements I've done show the compilation of > Lisp codes take major proportion. I don't think it is because of the quality > of Lisp generated. I have looked at a lot of the boot generated lisp and I too do not see significant problems with the code produced from the perspective of lisp being an assembly language (of course, there is always room for mechanical optimization) However, I am confident that the manner in which things are expressed is far from optimal. Im quite convinced that human lispers could do a better job of expressing the system in lisp than the boot compiler ever will. Of course, I might be wrong. Well just have to wait and see :) > As you know I don't believe in clean, easy modifiable, and maintainable Axiom > written in Lisp. Lisp is just too low level. For one thing, the verbosity > (I'm not talking of parenthesis) obscures the main ideas; its primitivity > drags further down. But, I've said enough on the subject already. I believe we are polar opposites in the way we see Lisp. Im not out to convert anyone. Steve _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
