Hi Bryan, if you're looking for performance you might consider gambit: http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/
It compiles to C, has a great debugger, and you should find people on the gambit mailing list to help you if you have questions. You might want to take a look at termite too: "Termite is an Erlang-like distributed programming system written in Scheme." http://toute.ca/ But if you're looking for lots of libraries your should probably stick with chicken. Cheers, -- Pierre-Alexandre 2007/6/5, bryan rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Well, I suppose it is a general question. Basically I have a big application made a few years ago, we (meaning myself and some partners) want to start it up again and add capabilities to it, this application was at the point in it where I know what I will want to do will require C because will need to write some low level stuff that should be optimized - I don't want to write in C (mainly because as a C programmer I am at best at maintenance level) so a language I find enjoyable that compiles to C is good, I decided to pick Chicken because while I am a Scheme newbie I often find the code relatively easy to understand and elegant (I've gone through SICP and have a good bit of functional programming). That Stalin was faster was interesting because some of the things I can see writing is for example providing drivers for Erlang in C, well the reason one writes a driver for Erlang in C (for example, via dryverl http://dryverl.objectweb.org/ ) is because it is a situation where performance and speed is critical Of course the things Brandon has said has made me reconsider, because the reason why I would consider doing anything with Stalin (speed) will not be trumped by the need I have above speed, being development time. That is to say the need for speed is a possible vague future optimization, I realize premature optimization is evil but I figure premature discussion of optimization can only be, at worst, slightly naughty. Cheers, Bryan On 6/5/07, Zbigniew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bryan, > > I'd like to know from what perspective you are approaching this. Do > you already have code written for Stalin that you need to interface to > Chicken? Or are you interested in the optimizations Stalin does > purely as a research problem and would like to see if they are > applicable to Chicken? Do you have a "need for speed" in a particular > application you've written or is this just a general question? > > The reason I ask is that if you're interested in this from a practical > standpoint of "speed up my application", and are looking at Stalin > primarily because "it's fast", then I would attack this from a > different angle. Write your application in Chicken, profile it, then > take the bottleneck or critical paths and 1) rewrite the algorithm; 2) > disable safe mode, interrupts, etc.; 3) rewrite in C; 4) use the > crunch egg; and so on. It all depends on the goals of your > application; pure speed is the goal only in select domains. Oh, and > premature optimization is the root of all evil. :) > > If you're looking at this more from a theoretical angle, or just for > fun, then that's a different matter, and other people have mentioned > some possibilities. Something interesting may come of it. > > > On 6/4/07, bryan rasmussen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess (for me) what I was meaning was what are different ways that > > people might be using Stalin for doing parts of their C compilation, > > and how Chicken works with what comes out of Stalin compilation as > > first part. Second part, analysis of Chicken Scheme code to see what > > would be more optimized in Stalin. > _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
_______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users