Re: A bug in Kawa reader

[Damien Mattei <damien.mattei@gmail.com>]

i do not see any future for scheme syntax, it is too boring compared to Python,
here is a comparaison i wrote between Scheme+, an extended Scheme and Python:
https://racket.discourse.group/t/comparison-of-code-between-scheme-an-enhanced-scheme-language-and-python/2317
but it is unfortunately very slower than Python because Scheme+ is
written in Scheme. But it could be used for learning, teaching
functional programming or for programming algorithms not too much
time-critical. (I'm currently  testing it with Guile scheme to see if
it is faster or not than with Racket ,not sure at all, as Guile seems
very slower than Racket with vectors in my other codes)

I'm searching help with developers of Scheme implementations that have
the skills to integrate the features and syntax of Scheme+ at low
level in the core implementation of Scheme.
SRFI 105 Curly is needed first. I would be interested in testing a
version compiled for java byte-code to see if it is faster than with
Racket or Guile. I'm sure it should be very fast.

Damien

On Fri, Mar 3, 2023 at 6:05 PM Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/2/23 23:08, Damien Mattei wrote:
> > noone interested in making a reader that support SRFI-105 ,curly infix for Kawa? it should be quite easy, when i have time i prospect to do it...
>
> I see little value in srfi-105.  Who would use it and why?
>
> If you want infix notation with Scheme semantics, you
> might find my "KaShell" experiment interesting:
>      http://kashell.org/
> (KaShell was previously called "q2".)
> There are some examples/tests in gnu/q2/testsuite in the source-code.
>
> KaShell has infix operators, with precedence - without reserved operators.
> (While not implemented, a 'define-operator' would be conceptually
> similar to define-syntax, but with precedence levels.)
>
> On goal of KaShell is to be a nice language for REPL, specifially
> like a "rich shell" with typed values.  That is why it avoids
> needless parenteses and semi-colon-like delimiters.
> Instead, KsShell uses indentation.
>
> Large parts of the syntax I haven't decided on yet.  You can "fall back"
> on using Scheme macros:
>      let ((x (3 * 4))) (x + 20)
> which is equivalent to Scheme:
>      (let ((x (* 3 4))) (+ x 20))
> but of course that is not very satisfactory.
>
> I haven't worked on KaShell in almost 5 years, but hopefully I'll
> get back to it someday.  Until then, maybe someone will be inspired.
> --
>         --Per Bothner
> per@bothner.com   http://per.bothner.com/