Re: Implementation Language

[Doug Evans <dje@transmeta.com>]

Ben Elliston writes:
 >    > [...] What's wrong exactly with the Guile implementation--if considered
 >    > as simply an implementation of R5RS?
 >    
 >    Nothing big AFAIK --- it's just tempting to depend on its extensions rather
 >    than using standard libraries like SLIB.
 > 
 > I think it's simple: we need to resist such temptations and write in
 > portable Scheme.

Modulo: we can write in C those parts we wish to
as long as a portable Scheme version also exists [e.g. cos.c,
not that I necessarily want to keep it in the long run,
but rather as an example of what I mean here.]

 > Do we have any performance issues with Guile?  

Yes!!!

 > Personally, I'd like to see us keep it and refine what we have.  As we know,
 > rewrites are rarely a panacea. :-)

But they're fun. :-)
And after we have at least one more big usage under our belt
[dynamic compilation?] and we have a proper function unit description
[plus related paraphenalia] I think we should take a step back
and review everything from the ground up.