From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Doug Evans To: Ben Elliston Cc: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , cgen@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Implementation Language Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 09:31:00 -0000 Message-id: <14729.40545.762999.300037@casey.transmeta.com> References: <20000802201037.F4394@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q3/msg00019.html 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.