This is the mail archive of the
guile@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Guile IMHO and a proposal.
- To: johnnyb at wolfram dot com, tlowing at hotmail dot com
- Subject: Re: Guile IMHO and a proposal.
- From: "Khimenko Victor" <guile at khim dot sch57 dot msk dot ru>
- Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:50:50 +0400 (MSD)
- Cc: rms at gnu dot org, guile at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: MCCME
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10007100458430.8111-100000@scully.wolfram.com>
10-Jul-00 05:06 you wrote:
>> *Guile is an embeddable version of a subset some implementation of Scheme.
>> -As there is little documentation this makes for tough work anyone wanting
>> to use Guile even if they know another implementation of Scheme.
> Actually, this is the one thing I found rather easy about guile. I
> haven't played with it in a while, but the documentation for creating
> scheme procedures in c, and calling scheme procedures from c was quite
> good, and it was very simple as well. By reading the tutorial, I had
> compiled a program that called scheme functions.
> The main drawback I see in Guile is the main() function thing. I was
> looking into writing a mod_scheme for apache using guile, and decided that
> most people wouldn't use a source-hacked apache just to host an
> expiremental model. Although I know from this list that it is
> theoretically possible to do GC without hacking main(), might it be
> simpler to go to a reference-counting model?
If you need 100% portable solution - yes. If you want "only" support for
Linux, *BSD, Win32 (and few proprietary *nix'es like Solaris and HP-UX)
then you can create version of guile without main() hack in few weekends
(on one weekend if you are lucky) - it'll be REALLY faster then adoption of
reference-counting GC.
> I know refcounting doesn't take care of circular data structures, but is
> that really a problem?
With scheme - yes.
> It hasn't hurt Perl any. Anyway, this is probably out of the question - it
> would probably change too many things. However, if there were a volunteer
> to move scheme from GC to refcounting, would there be any objections?