This is the mail archive of the
guile@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: PHP fork project- Guile vs Python vs ?
Mark> If instead you have seen better examples that have
Mark> come up since, they should be advertised. I have not
Mark> seen anything better that has reached any useable state,
Mark> and over five years have gone by.
Richard> This is because people have spent the past few years
Richard> arguing that this must be hard because nobody has done
Richard> it, instead of working on it.
Just a second: your earlier post was:
rms> There is lots of experience with translating other languages into
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
rms> Scheme and Lisp, so we know it is practical. We've already
rms> decided to do things this way.
which reasserts the original strong GNU project policy of telling
people to only consider translators, rather than linking to two
libraries, based on feasibility.
The situation now quite different. It can maybe be phrased as:
"We used to think it was feasible based on Rush, but now we know
that Rush never really existed. Still, people should try
implementing translators instead of giving up and saying it's too
hard."
Are you sure you want to have this strong GNU project policy based on
this weaker statement?
Wouldn't it be better to encourage the writing of translators, but not
discourage the use of Phython? Then when someone has shown that
translators are possible, we go back to the original strong statement?