Re: State of LilyPond with Guile 2.2

[Jonas Hahnfeld]

Am Sonntag, dem 18.04.2021 um 15:16 +0200 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Werner LEMBERG <wl@gnu.org> writes:
> 
> > > > For me, the speed of Guile 2.x without compiled Scheme bytecode
> > > > would be too painful.
> > > 
> > > Agreed for user installations, but we have a work-around there.  So
> > > what about development? Do we *require* compiled bytecode to work
> > > there?  [...]
> > 
> > I don't know, really.  I have zero feeling for that.  Of course it
> > would be nice if `make doc` doesn't become much slower.  Whether this
> > can be easily done, I have no clue.
> 
> Well, it would be sort of embarrassing to wait for the users to complain
> about an utterly non-working installation because they are the first to
> get to test a version using bytecode.
> 

Good point, I didn't think about it from that perspective. Of course,
it's "the same code, just compiled" but I can't deny that I saw it
going very wrong and that LilyPond with compiled bytecode ran into many
more GC bugs than without (because things are faster, which gives GC
more chances to screw things up).

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part