Dear Neil, Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply and your understanding.
> There are lots of ways to "interoperate" between languages, but once > you get into high-level languages the C calling-convention native code > way you might be thinking of doesn't necessarily work well. I am really interested in this topic. Many scientists write libraries in Matlab and Mathematica and I find this very unfortunate. Not only do they require you to buy a license for this software but it is also difficult to use them in your favourite language/environment. Therefore, I am thinking of writing my libraries in a compiled language in order to make them more reusable. > sometimes making it work very smoothly and efficiently for all cases, > like you might imagine, is infeasible or simply a low priority. I understand that. I thought it would be easy. I do not want to distract the Racket developers from more important work. > Maybe higher-level languages that aren't so easily mapped to a > particular model of native code put us in a better position to smooth > that transition. I have read something about LLVM and its intermediate representation. Do you think that using an LLVM-compiled language is more future-proof? > I know there has been interest in doing more numerical things in > Racket. It would be great to be able to do GPU programming. Cheers, Marduk -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
