Carl Sorensen <[email protected]> writes: > On 10/11/18, 12:35 PM, "lilypond-devel on behalf of Urs Liska" > <[email protected] on behalf of > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > Am 11. Oktober 2018 20:17:45 MESZ schrieb Karlin High > <[email protected]>: > >On 10/11/2018 12:59 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > >What level of optimism is appropriate for that claim? > > I don't think that tells us very much. From 1.8 to 2 they added > "significant improvements" that caused massive performance problems > for our specific use case. And I woulcn't bet too much money that the > improvements you mention specifically address these issues ... > > > On the other hand, the 3.0 test that they report on indicates that the > new JIT compile code is almost as fast as 1.8.
That makes little to no sense since 1.8 was slower than Guile 2 for most compiled code. The only thing I can imagine is that they mean the new JIT compile code is almost as fast as programming in C while manipulating SCM data with the 1.8 API calls. > And the way around the performance issues with 2 was to use > precompiled bytecode because the compiler was slow. This new JIT > compile claims to not need bytecode, so I am optimistic.... Our problems is not code written in Scheme but passing stuff between C++ and Scheme. Let's hope your optimism turns out more vindicated than my pessimism. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
