This is the mail archive of the
guile@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: continuation theory (Re: Translators, yet once more)
Telford Tendys <telford@eng.uts.edu.au> writes:
> To be a full-blown scheme implementation, guile must support the
> scheme philosophy, which is not going to suit users who want their
> chance to control the low level implemention nitty gritty (i.e. who
> want decent performance).
interesting. could you explain that further, I'm having trouble with
some of the logic.
> To be an embedded language, guile must be small and must not impose
> a burden on the application writers (its current GC system does
> impose quite a burden for applications that use their own storage
> allocation conventions especially when the authors of those
> applications don't understand GC).
you want to interact with a GC'ed system from C and not have to
understand GC? why, you can, but it'll be a very superficial
interaction. I'm not sure you'd want to.
or perhaps I misunderstood your point?
[ come to think of it, what is there to not understand about GC as a
concept? perhaps you mean the specific conservative GC
implementation used by Guile? ]
> To be a high performance (speed) language it needs a white hot
> compiler and for scheme that implies a compiler that can resolve all
> the undeclared implementation issues that scheme programmers are
> told they don't have to think about (i.e. major research project).
it's not a major research project anymore, as all imaginable research
have already been done, sometimes many times over.
it's a lot of work to implement, though.
[ note: white hot performance is a nice thing to have, but is not one
of the _main_ Guile goals. ]
> Because guile has no focus, there is no ``right'' way to do anything
> in guile because there is always the question ``when you say right,
> what is this going to be right for?'' the inevitable answer is
> ``everything'' and the end result is ``nothing much''.
examples?
--
A CONS is an object which cares.
-- Bernie Greenberg.