This is the mail archive of the guile@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the Guile project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: PHP fork project- Guile vs Python vs ?


On Sun, Jul 09, 2000 at 09:49:13PM +0400, Khimenko Victor wrote:
> > Yes, but i never doubted this. My concerns are more of a practical
> > nature: if i write a GNU program and plan to embed a script language,
> > what do i do. Most naturally, i would check the GNU website and will
> > find a link to the guile website. There i find lot's of good arguments
> > for using scheme (not guile) as an embeded language and i'm told
> > that the users of my application can even choose from several
> > syntaxes. This sounds very cool! But now what do i do next?
> 
> For now you have only two choices:
>   1) embed guile as it is without nice features like translators - there are
> NO sane interface for translators support and there are no big interest in
> developing such interface HERE AND NOW (before GOOPS is integrated and module
> system is reworked at least)

I think this is not the main question. I personally can live with
the current restrictions or use other languages. What i was trying to
point out is that the 'official' webpage strongly focuses on two features
of the language that are either problematic or not there (emedability and
translators). 

>   2) help with guile development

if i only where competent enough for doing this ...

> > There is hardly any information about the actual process of embeding
> > guile.
> 
> Want to change it ?

Yes, of course. I'm more than happy to write a 'howto-embed' (or extend
the current documentation) as soon as : i understand how it works; certain
things are possible (like not eating up 'main').


> So what ? Go and change it ! Whining will not help here. Yes, there are not
> enough documentation but how it can be changed other then writing such
> documentation ? Guile (not Scheme but Guile) is MUCH less mature
> TCL/Perl/Python. Not exactly surprising if you'll recall that it's also
> few years younger (it was announced in October of 1994 !).


I'm sorry if my remarks are perceived as whinig--that's the last
thing i want to do. I love guile and i enjoy reading this list very
much. I just happened to realize that a lot (most) of the work done
on guile recently isn't seen by the rest of the world.  Have a look
at the recent postings in comp.lang.scheme/lisp on 
'Guile as an embeded language' to see what i mean. There's a lot of
missinformation arround and i think that the info on the webpages
is partly responsible for it.


> >> The idea is, that when these translators are complete, you will
> >> program in Guile/Python or Guile/Perl (or whatever) and not notice
> >> that Scheme is actually doing all the work.
> 
> > Should this read: "once the translators are complete" ?
> 
> What's the difference ?

I might give a more realistic picture on the current state of
development of translators. I consider this important information
for a programmer looking for an embedable language. As an application
developer i would be--erm--not amused to find out that the language
i just embedded actually does force my applications user to use
scheme syntax. 

> > But that would imply that someone is working on this feature.
> 
> Of course.
> 
> > Is there?
> 
> Yes. Take look on http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~bickiia/tcl-scheme/ ,
> http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~bickiia/logo-scheme/ ...
> C->Guile and elist->Guile translators are also in [slow] development ...

I did. There is even a link to this site on the webpage, unfortunately
under 'ideas'.

> > I'm not arguing against the idea of guile as an universal embeded
> > language for GNU applications.
> 
> Then what exactly you are arguing against ?

The fact that the web pages focus so much on two features 
that are barely present and -- from all i have read in this
mailing list -- are not at all the focal point of development.
If the purpose of the web pages is to advertise guile as _the_
GNU extension language, why not point out the existing features
of the langage: mature langauge with clean syntax, simple but
powerfull C api (compare that with perls C api!) etc. etc.

> > I just feel that the information on the web pages isn't really in sync with
> > the available parts of the language.
> 
> Yeah, it's well known problem. Do you volunteer to fix it ?

Yes, of course.

> [...]

> Very true. Just I've not seen answer on small yet important question: WHO
> should write this nice "up-to-date information on how to use it" ? There are
> no paid stuff behind guile (or so I heard) so there are noone who you can
> prescribe to do this work.
> 

I know. I didn't expect an answer, i just reacted to some posts here as well
as in some newsgroups. I try to move most of my perl stuff to guile
and seem to run against the same walls all the time (mostly documentation,
i fear). I spend much more time reading c-code than actually writing
guile (or even c-code to create new modules). Maybe i'm just the
unfortunate first (but somehow i doubt that) but then again: i'm trying
to use guile exactly for what it's advertised, so maybe my remarks
as a _user_ of guile might be of some help. 


 Ralf

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]