John Cowan <co...@mercury.ccil.org> wrote: > Aaron W. Hsu scripsit: > > > I question the sanity of minor optimizations on deliberately slow code. > > It's precisely naive implementations that benefit most from an explicit > fast path through the code that an optimizing system may well be able to > find for itself. Nowadays, C compilers normally disregard the "register" > declaration, but in the old days, a judiciously placed "register" in > the inner loop, or to put a global variable in a register (back when > machines *had* registers) made a hug difference to performance.
I think we are past this. We should not concern ourselves with hacks to improve the performance of implementations that do not care about performance. If performance is important, then use one of the already useful and good Scheme implementations out there that produce fast code. If you do not care about speed, feel free to use a naive implementation, but do not expect it to be fast. It should be self-evident that "register" style hacks are not good style or useful in Scheme, and we should not encode them into the standard. Again, if you care about performance at all, then you should not use an implementation that does not care about performance. It will not scale. -- Aaron W. Hsu | arcf...@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
