| |||||||||||||
LinuxCon: A tale of two bootchartsLinuxCon: A tale of two bootchartsPosted Aug 26, 2010 5:39 UTC (Thu) by thedevil (subscriber, #32913)In reply to: LinuxCon: A tale of two bootcharts by neilbrown Parent article: LinuxCon: A tale of two bootcharts
Back in the 80s? It still does precisely that AFAIK. Other programs which provide both scriptability and a built-in core written in the scripting language do something similar, or else they just ship the core blob in the source (hello ocaml!)
(Log in to post comments)
LinuxCon: A tale of two bootcharts Posted Aug 26, 2010 9:52 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458) [Link]
The difference is that back in the 80s, a lot fewer people used prepackaged emacs.
LinuxCon: A tale of two bootcharts Posted Aug 26, 2010 18:01 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
I thought emacs switched at some point from actually dumping core to more explicitly byte-code compiling the elisp and writing it to files, on account of needing a substantial chunk of optional elisp from a very large library when starting up; dumping only the fundamental stuff was still too slow, and dumping everything would require reloading too much, so they needed a quick way to load individual modules, and this obsoleted the core dump mechanism. But I could be wrong; it's been ages since I've actually watched emacs build.
|
|||||||||||||