-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Feature Idea: salve_ipc.proper
#32
Comments
To summarize #16 and #28 (will be closed in favor of this issue):
What this will not be:
With regards to tree sitter, the library |
To any future observers, the milestone was removed from all three issues and then added back to this one to prevent it saying it has been 66% finished when in reality I haven't even begun. |
You don't need a fancy new tool like Mojo to get more speed. There are many existing tools that speed up Python a lot. For example: cython, numba, mypyc. Also, you don't need to speed up all your code. Measure what's slow and work mostly on the bottlenecks. (They are usually not where you expect them to be.) |
I'm not saying I want Mojo for speed, I just like the language in that regard. The tree-sitter/LSP support is for speed. I'm fine with the speed of the current parts of Salve but I imagine that it wouldn't be ideal in some situations and I also want to try this challenge, its just proving to be significantly harder than I'd've liked (closer to panic zone than challenge zone). |
Crazy idea, but instead of trying to cram all of this into one tool, I can make four separate but similar tools. The three tools would be as follows:
Then, I can wrap this all under one organization named Salve which mainly prioritizes the development of the Salve package but also maintains the other three. @leycec, @Akuli, you both have more experience in this domain than I, what do you think of something like this? |
I have created and reserved the organization name |
Going to go ahead with this as I'm a little impatient and want to keep progress going |
#73 is a part of this. |
Going to make this part of a salve-org discussion on future plans and remove the stuff albero now covers from the v1.0.0 branch. #74 Will be part of v1.0.0 |
Closing in favor of Salve Organization Discussion #1 |
Feature report:
Many of the functions that the server uses could be far more optimized but I don't want to mess with the main module because in the future I may rewrite it in Mojo (for fun and because I like the language, not for the speed claims) which is similar to Python and keeping a Python implementation wouldn't hurt. More than just that though, I really like the state of it and I'm proud of the work I've done and the progress I've made making the tools all on my own. That being said, speed is an option I want available to users. I therefore think that #16, #28 and this can all be pushed into one overarching plan to have a submodule that utilizes the proper tools for the job.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: