>To replace an interpreter by a JIT compiler means more oomplexity and > also more possible problems. (For example, if there are platforms > someday that libjit does not support.) Reading a Lisp interpreter is > very useful for learning.

> If the plan is to add a jit and keep the Lisp interpreter as well, > we don't lose its advantages for study, and we can still support all > the platforms -- but we add complexity even more.

> I don't think a 3% speedup is worth those drawbacks. Or even a 10% > speedup. A really big speedup would justify the costs.

Why do they still let RMS allows to say something about technical today?

No wonder Emacs is losing the users.