Re: GNU/MIT Scheme?

[Mikael Djurfeldt]

MJ Ray <address@hidden> writes:

> On 2003-05-29 14:52:37 +0100 Greg Troxel <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> MIT Scheme (now GNU/MIT it seems) is quite a different beast from
>> guile.  [...] it doesn't seem like a good idea to use it for an
>> extension language to a C program.  So I see it as complementary to
>> guile, not competitive. [...]
>
> I see it as a competitor, for what I use guile for: deploying software
> written in Scheme to GNU platforms (must publish more of them). Do you
> think I should be using GNU/MIT instead?

This, of course, depends on the total sum of your needs.  If you want
to publish "pure" R5RS Scheme software and the architectures which
GNU/MIT Scheme supports are enough for you, GNU/MIT Scheme might very
well be a good choice.

(But you might find some Guile facilities such as the module system or
the OOP system to be useful.  I'm not sure GNU/MIT Scheme has such
support yet.)

> Then again, given that most of what I want to do seems to involve
> interfacing with C things, should I stick with Guile?  Our OS is
> written mostly in C, so aren't all things just extensions to C?
> This move has confused me. I thought Guile was GNU's Scheme and GNU's
> scripting language of choice. I was wondering if Guile knew where they
> fit in now that GNU has another Scheme implementation. So far, it
> seems not, unless they are to be just embedded extensions.

As Greg said, GNU/MIT Scheme and Guile has different goals and
different roles.  GNU/MIT Scheme is an implementation of Scheme, while
Guile is an extension and scripting language.

M