>From my own experiences, while I do believe rewriting it in C would make it faster, a much better option would be to adapt JuliaParser.jl. Last year right when I first started with Julia, I thought I'd need to implement most of code that was performance critical (at least for me) in C, and call that from Julia (and was following examples in Julia itself where C is used). However, I got schooled by some of the top Julia contributors (in particular Tony Kelman), that well-written, readable Julia code can still be as fast as C, and I have the microbenchmarks (about Unicode string conversions) to prove it. Jeff recently told me that the parser actually isn't the biggest issue with replacing Scheme with Julia, it's rather the lowering code. It would be nice to see that ported to Julia, and then do some performance comparisons.
Replacing all of the Scheme code with Julia (and moving more of the lower level stuff for Unicode from C to Julia) I think would greatly help allowing more contributors to work on the core language, as it is, mad skillz are needed in Julia, Scheme, C, C++, and LLVM IR to work across the board. On Tuesday, May 24, 2016 at 12:57:37 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > Rewriting the parser in C would (probably) make it faster. So would > compiling it using e.g. the recently-open-sourced ChezScheme > <https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme>, which is a less drastic measure. > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Ford Ox <ford...@gmail.com <javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Thank you very much. >> >> One more question : Is there any speed to gain, when all that stuff >> would be rewritten in the lowest possible language? (I guess that is >> assembler or machine code :D) > > >
