4 ms·
>No multithreading, I/O locks under GNUs/eww, glacial slow All this would not happen if RMS had chosen Common Lisp to implement it...
by flavio81 1y ago
>No multithreading, I/O locks under GNUs/eww, glacial slow
All this would not happen if RMS had chosen Common Lisp to implement it...
- anthk 1y agoRMS hates Common Lisp because it's a bit bloated (tons) and the closes to GNU Emacs written in CL it's Lem and it feels far slower than Emacs.
- kazinator 1y agoIronically, the GNU system now needs hundreds of megabytes of installation just to compile C.
- anthk 1y agoThe bloat is not about the size (sbcl and ecl can be pretty slim for what they do), it's the spec.
- kazinator 1y agoTo write down the full spec, you have to document everything in those hundreds of megabytes. That's going to run for thousands of pages. If your spec is small but you have hundreds of megabytes of bloat, it means you're not even remotely documenting everything.
- anthk 1y agoYou are really wrong. The Common Lisp Hyperspecs weights very little in my machine. 2.2 MB compressed as a TGZ. It's really docummented. But the standard compared to Scheme it's huge. PD: 2.2MB as HTML text weights nothing. You don't need images. It's 16MB uncompressed. More than 1500 items. People often forgets how little plain text weights.
- Karrot_Kream 1y agoBloated? Sure. But slower than emacs? Strong disagreement here. I find Lem a lot snappier than emacs.
- anthk 1y agoNot on my n270 Atom, even under SBCL.
- Karrot_Kream 1y agoHuh I wonder if it’s an Atom thing