mflatt at cs.utah.edu
Fri Aug 18 19:39:25 EDT 2006
At Fri, 18 Aug 2006 00:43:54 -0400, dyb at cs.indiana.edu wrote:
> Why is this bad? I have only so many hours to spend on the compiler, and
> I can add only so much complexity before it becomes unmanageable, so the
> time and code I'd spend overcoming phased library overhead will have to be
> reflected in less time and code spent on actual optimization. I'm
> speaking for myself, of course, but I suspect that most compiler writers
> operate under similar constraints.
I guess this is close to the point where our views diverge.
In PLT Scheme, we spend lots of time implementing macro-based language
variants (e.g., HtDP Beginner Scheme) and constructs (e.g., classes and
mixins and traits). So, extra time spent on the compiler does not seem
like time lost to other optimizations, but time saved from fighting
In any case, I'm still willing to standardize on the phaseless model,
even though I think it's flawed.
More information about the R6RS