> So calling TimL functions have overhead that calling VimL functions don't.
But that's easy to optimize away, I imagine. I read this as a way for forming closures and it's easy to see during compilation if the closure is necessary.
Actually, it's not a case right now, but it is reasonable to expect to have TimL generate on average better VimL than handwritten, like many C compilers do with asm. I guess "make it work" is more important right now than "make it fast", but if it becomes used, I'm sure it will improve quickly on performance front.
But that's easy to optimize away, I imagine. I read this as a way for forming closures and it's easy to see during compilation if the closure is necessary.
Actually, it's not a case right now, but it is reasonable to expect to have TimL generate on average better VimL than handwritten, like many C compilers do with asm. I guess "make it work" is more important right now than "make it fast", but if it becomes used, I'm sure it will improve quickly on performance front.