Re: Running Compiled Guile Objects

It's unnecessary to manually load .go files. You can pre-compile .scm to
.go and install to the compiled-load-path. And put .scm to load-path, if
your path is correct, and if the .scm is no newer than .go, Guile will
automatically load .go directly without auto-compilation.

BTW, I saw some Guile project didn't install .go to correct path. Even if
Makefile compiled .go and installed, the program will trap to
auto-compilation for the first time.
However, it's the matter of tweak the install path, rather than manually
load .go.

Best regards.

On Sat, Dec 14, 2024, 22:01 Maxime Devos <[email protected]> wrote:

> Compiling the .scm to .go ahead of time (with guild) and loading the .go
> directly makes a lot of sense:
>
>
>
>    - It avoids issues with locating the .go (no need to set .go path when
>    invoking guile, although if it does use additional dependencies, depending
>    on where they are located the script may need to set the .go (and .scm)
>    path).
>    - It needs to look at less files (no need to compare .scm & .go
>    modification times) (*)
>    - Easier to set compilation options (e.g. optimisation level)
>    - It avoids auto-compilation (no "compiling this thing / that thing”
>    messages, no compilation cache filled with old junk, and in case of some
>    forms of containerisation, avoids permission issues & transmission vector).
>
>
>
> (*) won’t make a big difference since it most likely uses other modules,
> but it’s something.
>
>
>
> >I tried the following commands with no luck:
>
> >guile3.0 example.scm.go
>
> >guile3.0 --language=bytecode example.scm.go
>
>
>
> To my understanding of the language tower, the second is supposed to work.
> What does “no luck” mean here? (I don’t have a guile setup at the moment.)
>
>
>
> (You need to recompile in case of some version changes, but that’s hardly
> Guile-specific.)
>
>
>
> (There is an internal caching mechanism for autocompilation, but AOT (to
> bytecode) is a fine thing to do, and Guile supports that too. I recommend
> it for things like libraries and installed software (for random scripts
> autocompilation is likely good enough unless the extra messages or shared
> (per-user) cache directory are problematic.).)
>
>
>
> Best regards,
> Maxime Devos
>