On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 10:40 AM Thomas Dickerson <thomas_dicker...@alumni.brown.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:44 AM Robby Findler <ro...@cs.northwestern.edu> > wrote: >> >> May I ask why you need to have the C++ code embed Racket instead of >> the other way around (ie using the FFI)? > > > The short answer is this project is a very small part of a very large > enterprise C++ code base, and it's not reasonable to rewrite every single > program in our toolkit that needs to interact with our DSL to be a dynamic > library with a Racket front-end.
I think I'm missing a bit more context so I'll continue this line of questions. The path that you seem to be heading down seems to be one where you'll duplicate a lot of work that's already gone into DrRacket, and it seems unlikely to me that it is the most productive. Can you say a little more about what you want to do with DrRacket? I guess there will be some program in your DSL that you'll want to work with. Do you expect to be able to run these programs? If so, does it make sense to run them when you aren't in the embedded-in-the-huge-C++-code-base mode? How about compilation of the programs (i.e. macro expansion)? Robby -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAL3TdOO4pm3N%3DyzDdyuyVO-yBk2L5YF%3DFmnb-HwuBFpn%2BDcs_w%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
