scsh-users
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Comparison between emacs, clisp, scsh for scripts.

To: scsh-news@zurich.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Comparison between emacs, clisp, scsh for scripts.
From: Martin Gasbichler <gasbichl@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 18:53:20 +0200
Organization: Zentrum fuer Datenverarbeitung
>>>>> "Mike" == Michael Sperber <sperber@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> writes:

>>>>> "Pascal" == Pascal Bourguignon <too.much.spam@example.com> writes:

Pascal> But I've  been surprised  to see  that it was  slower and  bigger than
Pascal> emacs or clisp.

Mike> It's just something we haven't paid particular attention to recently,
Mike> since it didn't seem very important.  We were more intent on providing
Mike> functionality.

Mike> Space usage mostly has to do with the simple-mindedness of the garbage
Mike> collector as well as the fact that you're loading a full development
Mike> system.  We are working on the GC, but it'll be a while until that
Mike> stabilizes sufficiently.  I agree we need to do something about
Mike> startup speed; that's also closely related to the GC issue.

I've just patched the heap dumper to get rid of image relocation if
the OS gives us the same address at the next startup (as it usually
does). This decreases the startup times between 20% and 30% on the
machines I tested.

We'll continue to work on this problem, so stay tuned ;-)

-- 
Martin

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>