[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: no constants please

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:09:44 -0500, Richard Kelsey <kelsey@xxxxxxx> wrote:

The JNI style of FFI, where the C code has indirect references and
never the Scheme values themselves, has lots of advantages.  But it
does add overhead.  I would prefer an FFI that allowed a choice of
direct or indirect values on a per-function basis.

I think the overhead is largely unimportant. Unless you are interacting
with near-c-speed-sufficiently-smart-scheme-compilers (better think of
crawling-lame-naive-bytecode-interpreter) the overhead of this will
be completely lost in the noise the Scheme implementation produces.

(And so far I haven't seen anybody complain about JNIs performance,
so the performance issue looks a little bit artifical to me)

I think safety and portability is much more important, and I wonder
why the authors of this SRFI are giving it so little thought.