[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Logo baseline

From: Ludovic Courtès
Subject: Re: Logo baseline
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 09:35:49 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)


Arne Babenhauserheide <address@hidden> skribis:

> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
>> Like I wrote, Guile remains an extension language, no argument here.
>> However, describing it as “just” an extension language seems odd to me.
>> It doesn’t take into account what many have been doing with Guile, and
>> it doesn’t match the efforts that have gone into Guile since 2.0.
> I don’t think that it is described as "just" an extension language. The
> website makes it very clear that Guile is also a viable application
> language.
> Where do you get the impression that Guile is described as "just" an
> extension language?

This thread is about the logo baseline, which is: “GNU extension
language”.  I agree that the web site is clearer; I’m just talking about
the logo here.

>>> Actually I’d love to see Guile become better at this: to make it easier
>>> to deploy an application that uses Guile in a statically compiled
>>> binary.
>>> Basically to generalize what LilyPond is doing.
>> In what ways could it become “better” for this use case?
> Currently the default way to embed assumes that Guile is provided as a
> shared library. But that can be problematic when you want to ship a
> binary people can test easily.

I think this is no different for Guile than for any other piece of
software: some would ship a Docker image, and I’d argue that you can use
‘guix pack’ to generate a minimal standalone tarball or Docker image.

(Though I think it’s also perfectly doable to provide a binary that’s
statically-linked against libguile.)


reply via email to

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