Re: [Texmacs-dev] Disastrous boot time for new versions

[Daniel Andor]

On Wednesday 05 March 2003 8:43 pm, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 09:37, address@hidden wrote:
> > > > That is not a philosophical problem to me. But the more texmacs will
> > > > use GUILE as a application language (instead of a mere extension
> > > > language) the more it will make sense to use a more efficient
> > > > implementation of Scheme.
> > >
> > > Do you know of more efficient implementations,
> > > which can also be used of extension languages?
> >
> > I will look for that.

I mentioned this problem to a lisp-compiler-hacker friend of mine and he said 
guile is a "disaster"!

Embedding a lisp such as ECLs or GCL may provide more efficiency and power, 
especially if we'd like to move as much as possible into a lisp-ish language. 
If we need to stick to a flavour of scheme, then mzscheme (or rscheme, as 
suggested here) could also be considered.

Daniel.

> > The problem is knowing what is the requirement for a scheme
> > implementation to be used as an extension language.
> >
> > I suppose that is:
> >
> >   -- easy to bind to C
> >
> >   -- the full language in available in runtime
> >
> >   -- no need for an external compiler (I suppose you do not want
> >      texmacs to depend on gcc :-)
> >
> >   -- module system supporting namespaces
>
> Perhaps rscheme is what you want?  http://www.rscheme.org/
>
> apt-cache search rscheme
> apt-get install rscheme