This is the mail archive of the guile@cygnus.com mailing list for the guile project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Keith Wright <kwright@tiac.net> writes: > > From: Greg Harvey <Greg.Harvey@thezone.net> > > > Jeff Read <bitwize@geocities.com> writes: > > > > > > I think the Guile team should pare it down a little. Make it a bit > > > smaller and a LOT faster > > > > The code size of guile is not any bigger than perl, python and > <... and Tck/Tk and so on> > > Whoa, Chill out! Why are you telling us all this? If anybody can > make it still smaller and faster, don't try to talk em out of it. I'm not trying to talk anyone out of anything. I'm pointing out that the beloved misconception of guile as some kind of overloaded, bloated beast (as compared to the other scripting languages) isn't true (tho startup time would suggest otherwise). Yes, we do want to make the core smaller, but the reason is not because perl is smaller, or python is smaller, but that it will make it more flexible for people using guile. > The goal should not be "as good as <software>", but "as good > as possible". When the chearleader yells "Go team" don't > snarl "We've gone as far as them". Yes, we should make it as as good and fast as possible, but the point I was making is that we aren't that much worse than python/perl/tcl, so we shouldn't be comparing ourselves wholesale to any of them, and particularly, not saying 'let's make it small and fast like foo', when guile is smaller than foo. I seriously doubt this is going to light a fire of complacency under everyone who wants guile to be better. > I would put high priority on coherent and flexible design, closely > followed by correct implentation, but sometimes less code has fewer bugs. > > > > Oh, and why does it give me that IOT Trap error when I do read-line? Is > > > that a libc or egcs thing? > > > > No idea. A gdb backtrace would probably be helpful for someone to find > > the bug, though. > > (read-line) works here with glibc, gcc, rather old (july) guile. What version of glibc? -- Greg