This is the mail archive of the
cgen@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the CGEN project.
Implementation Language
- To: Ben Elliston <bje at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Implementation Language
- From: Doug Evans <dje at transmeta dot com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2000 09:25:26 -0700 (PDT)
- Cc: cgen at sources dot redhat dot com
Ben Elliston writes:
> We've been running CGEN purely interpeted for several months now and no one
> is finding the speed to be a problem at all.
The smob class implementation is gone too though.
Debugging was much easier with it.
[Of course, for those tuning in late, should the implementation
remain in Guile, yes, we'll want to switch to goops (IMO of course).]
That's probably the first decision we need to reach:
do we stick with Guile? There's no other politically correct
choice for a Scheme implementation. Or do we switch to C? (/C++?).
[I can here the cackles now ...]
I think speed of code generation is important, but I also think
there's no reason why a Scheme implementation can't satisfy that.
However, I think the current Guile implementation has a _long_ way to go
in this regard, and I'm not convinced it will ever get there.