Re: Test reader speed of Guile 3.0.6

[Dr. Arne Babenhauserheide]

Jonas Hahnfeld <hahnjo@hahnjo.de> writes:

> IMHO not including a major rewrite of the entire reader into a bug-fix
> release should have been the first step. Right now, if we asked for
> guile-3.0 during configure time (which we don't), we would have no idea
> which one we get. Really, there must be some truth to the idea of
> semantic versioning...

Semantic versioning is about the APi — which this should not change. So
from semantic versioning a change of the implementation is not a
problem.

If there are serious performance regression, then I think that this
needs to be addressed, though, because then the practical use of the API
would be impacted.

>> All reasonably workable versions of LilyPond do this.  The others are
>> more like "proof of concept" installations provided by package
>> maintainers that are not by themselves LilyPond users.  They are
>> unusably slow and resource-intensive and have a tendency towards
>> crashing and eating all memory for non-trivial scores.
>
> I don't think the situation is that bad anymore. I've been trying hard
> to fix bugs reported from distributions that attempted switching for
> 2.22 (telling them to go back to Guile 1.8), and current master is able
> to run full 'make test/check' and 'make doc' when built against Guile
> 2.2.

Thank you very much! I plan to continue to keep attention on Lilypond
within Guile.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature