[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the future of Guile
From: |
Bill Schottstaedt |
Subject: |
Re: the future of Guile |
Date: |
Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:50:19 -0800 |
> Right, although I question the "language for extensions" paradigm: why
> would you choose language Y for "extensions" and language X for the
> rest, given that (i) X sucks, (ii) Y rocks, and (iii) nothing inherently
> makes programs in language Y "slower". :-)
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.
For stuff involving vectors, C is much easier to read than Scheme.
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). I've seen this "There is one Language and its
name is XXX" about 40 times -- at least once for every language
except maybe Pascal. Of course, it was true in SAIL's case...
- 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,
Bill Schottstaedt <=
- 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