Re: when GC is permitted felix (12 Jan 2004 04:31 UTC)
Re: when GC is permitted felix 12 Jan 2004 04:31 UTC
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:04:39 -0500, Richard Kelsey <email@example.com> wrote:
> Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:42:48 +0100
> From: Felix Winkelmann <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Now, I'm all for maximum performance, if possible. But that's not
>> (IMHO) the proper goal for this SRFI.
> I am curious as to what you mean by 'this SRFI'. Do you think that
> maximum performace is not a proper goal for any FFI SRFI? Or only
> for the first one? Would you be less displeased by SRFI-50 if it
> appeared after a JNI-style SRFI was in place?
Maximum performance is secondary here, period. When writing code for
a Scheme FFI that is too low-level and exposes too many implementation-
specific details, you are walking on very thin ice. It requires
implementation-specific knowledge that a user of the FFI normally
shouldn't be bothered with. If the necessary abstractions have
a certain performance impact, then it should be accepted.
I would be less displeased having a single, portable, robust
SRFI for accessing external libraries. It's as simple as that,
and probably a not completely unreasonable desire.
> I can understand wanting the first FFI SRFI being a safer, more general
> one, perhaps based on JNI or Pika. This SRFI isn't that SRFI because
> that isn't the type of FFI that Mike and I needed.
Sorry, Richard, but I get the impression that you have not really
grasped the intention behind the SRFI process.