[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the future of Guile
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: the future of Guile |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Dec 2007 16:30:07 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
"Bill Schottstaedt" <address@hidden> writes:
> There are several reasons to have different base and extension
> languages. The worst is that Guile/Scheme is 10 to 30 times
> slower than the equivalent C code, and in DSP work, that matters.
Of course it matters, but another solution would be to have a faster
Scheme implementation.
> Another is that everyone has his favorite language, and
> by separating the basic stuff out, you can provide any number
> of extension language choices at reasonably small cost (Snd
> can be built with Guile, Gauche, Forth, Ruby, or no extension
> language).
Right, but few applications really do this, probably because it's hard
to provide good integration and good maintenance of all these.
Actually, I'm not arguing against "embeddability", rather stating
that it should not serve as an excuse for not going beyond the mere
"language for extension" approach. Among Schemers, many care about
writing applications in Scheme, rather than in C. That people develop
Guile bindings for existing C libraries is an illustration.
Thanks,
Ludovic.
- the future of Guile, Marco Maggi, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Stephen Compall, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Ludovic Courtès, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Neil Jerram, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Andy Wingo, 2007/12/05
- Re: the future of Guile, Mikael Djurfeldt, 2007/12/06
- Re: the future of guile, Daniel Llorens del Río, 2007/12/04