[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: [Chicken-users] Bignums in core

From: Peter Bex
Subject: Re: [Chicken-hackers] Re: [Chicken-users] Bignums in core
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:10:06 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/

On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 08:26:03PM -0700, Kon Lovett wrote:
> Hi,
> Personally I want a core Chicken with a component orientation towards  
> the major sub-systems. I mean "pluggable & composable" string, number,  
> gc, concurrency, file components; not to be construed as an exhaustive  
> list.
> I see Chicken at an architectural cross-roads. Rather than pilling  
> capability into the core perhaps we should consider something that  
> qualifies as "it's all chickens down."

I don't think modularization for the sake of modularization is a good
idea, but I do agree that a modular number system for example would be
a decent solution to the problem we're facing right now.  If we can
make a cheap and generic system to do it for all types, go for it, but
don't force it.

"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
                                                        -- Donald Knuth

Attachment: pgpqCpOS2_1uu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]