Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Hi! BTW, I keep saying to and from because lots of Schemes have FFIs, but being easily embeddable is not so common. Next version: In that case I think it is better to explicitly say that it is easy to embed Chicken in C programs. I had to think for a moment what this to and from really meant. Groetjes, Peter. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Hi! Chicken is an optimizing batch compiler for the R5RS Scheme language. It produces portable, efficient C supporting tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads. Interfacing to and from C is emphasized, including both static and dynamic loading of Chicken code, with full support for Posix functions. Chicken comes with a reasonably fast interpreter for interactive use, debugging, and scripting. Chicken also has a repository with hundreds of user-contributed eggs, including most SRFIs and many other widely available Scheme libraries. Chicken is a combination of an optimising Scheme compiler and a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports R5RS and most of the SRFIs. The compiler produces C code and supports tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads. It providesfunctionality for easy interfacing with C libraries. The interpreter can be used for interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. Furthermore, Chicken has an active and helpfull community. Extensive documentation is available. And there are hundreds of user contributed Chicken libraries available that make a programmer's task easier. Maybe it is just me, but I always install packages with a goal in mind. And that means that I want to know whether a given tool can help me achieve that goal or not. I don't want to wonder or find out whether I need a batch compiler or not. Groetjes, Peter. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Peter Busser scripsit: Chicken is a combination of an optimising Scheme compiler and a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports R5RS and most of the SRFIs. The compiler produces C code and supports tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads. It providesfunctionality for easy interfacing with C libraries. The interpreter can be used for interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. Furthermore, Chicken has an active and helpfull community. Extensive documentation is available. And there are hundreds of user contributed Chicken libraries available that make a programmer's task easier. We are getting there. Chicken combines an optimising Scheme compiler with a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports most of R5RS and the important SRFIs. The compiler generates highly portable C code and supports tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads. The interface to and from C code is easy to use. The interpreter allows interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. Extensive documentation is supplied. The active and helpful Chicken community fixes bugs quickly and has contributed hundreds of Chicken libraries that make the programmer's task much easier. -- You are a child of the universe no less John Cowan than the trees and all other acyclichttp://www.ccil.org/~cowan graphs; you have a right to be here.[EMAIL PROTECTED] --DeXiderata by Sean McGrath ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Hi! Chicken combines an optimising Scheme compiler with a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports most of R5RS and the important SRFIs. The compiler generates highly portable C code and supports tail recursion, I would get rid of the words that add little or no real value, like highly in the above sentence. The active and helpful Chicken community fixes bugs quickly and has contributed hundreds of Chicken libraries that make the programmer's task much easier. The same goes for much. I wouldn't say that the community fixes bugs quickly. Because it raises people's expectations. If these expectations aren't met, people get disappointed. It is better to set low expectations and then to exceed them, then to set high expectations and to disappoint people. I think that the community not only fixes bugs and contributes libraries, but also provides support. Are there any notable free software (or otherwise) projects in which Chicken plays an important role? Groetjes, Peter. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Peter Busser scripsit: I would get rid of the words that add little or no real value, like highly in the above sentence. [snip] I think that the community not only fixes bugs and contributes libraries, but also provides support. Okay. Next version: Chicken combines an optimising Scheme compiler with a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports most of R5RS and the important SRFIs. The compiler generates portable C code and supports tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads, and the interface to and from C code is easy to use. The interpreter allows interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. Extensive documentation is supplied. The active and helpful Chicken community fixes bugs, provides support, and has contributed hundreds of Chicken libraries that make the programmer's task easier. Are there any notable free software (or otherwise) projects in which Chicken plays an important role? I don't know. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux, de rapport nyait pas. -- Jacques Lacan, L'Etourdit ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Isn't it redundant to say The compiler ... supports tail recursion? After all, if the compiler didn't support tail recursion, it wouldn't be a Scheme compiler. I also find the first sentence to be rather cumbersome, and I think the two strongest points of Chicken are the FFI and the availability of hundreds of eggs. How about the following: Chicken Scheme includes an R5RS-conformant compiler and interpreter. The Chicken library system contains hundreds of convenient modules for practical use, with new modules being added daily. Chicken also includes a very flexible and efficient interface to C and C++. The compiler generates portable C code and supports first-class continuations and lightweight threads. The interpreter allows interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. Extensive documentation is available. John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Okay. Next version: Chicken combines an optimising Scheme compiler with a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports most of R5RS and the important SRFIs. The compiler generates portable C code and supports tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads, and the interface to and from C code is easy to use. The interpreter allows interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. Extensive documentation is supplied. The active and helpful Chicken community fixes bugs, provides support, and has contributed hundreds of Chicken libraries that make the programmer's task easier. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Ivan Raikov scripsit: Isn't it redundant to say The compiler ... supports tail recursion? After all, if the compiler didn't support tail recursion, it wouldn't be a Scheme compiler. Unfortunately no. It is quite common for Scheme compilers not to be fully tail recursive. For example, Kawa and Stalin are only tail recursive on self calls, and will run out of stack when general tail recursion is used. If it comes to that, first-class continuations are as required as tail recursion, and few compilers to C (or Java) other than Chicken get that 100% right. I think the two strongest points of Chicken are the FFI and the availability of hundreds of eggs. I agree that those are very strong points. However, I think the ability to get the whole semantics correct and still generate fast C is every bit as important. Chicken Scheme includes an R5RS-conformant compiler and Saying that Chicken is R5RS-compliant is simply false advertising. It isn't. There is a whole section in the manual on deviations from the standard. It's good enough compliant. Here's my next proposal, slightly rearranged and incorporating some of your improvements: Chicken Scheme combines an optimising compiler with a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports almost all of R5RS and the important SRFIs. The compiler generates portable C code and supports tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads, and the interface to and from C code is flexible, efficient, and easy to use. The active and helpful Chicken community fixes bugs, provides support, and has contributed hundreds of Chicken libraries that make the programmer's task easier. The interpreter allows interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. Extensive documentation is supplied. -- Evolutionary psychology is the theory John Cowan that men are nothing but horn-dogs, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and that women only want them for their money. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --Susan McCarthy (adapted) ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
I do believe that the Stalin compiler supports general tail recursion. Are you sure that you are talking about recent versions of Stalin? The new version is better, but I still think that ... hundreds of Chicken libraries ... deserves its own sentence. Do you think you can break up the sentence The active and helpful ... into something more concise and manageable? Oh, and apparently, compliant means that a system provides partial support for a standard, and conformant means that a system has been formally tested (and passed) against all requirements of the standard. So it would be correct to say that Chicken is R5RS-compliant, but not that it is R5RS-conformant, at least according to the explanation in this blog post: http://blogs.windriver.com/wilson/2006/11/compliance_vs_c.html John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Ivan Raikov scripsit: Isn't it redundant to say The compiler ... supports tail recursion? After all, if the compiler didn't support tail recursion, it wouldn't be a Scheme compiler. Unfortunately no. It is quite common for Scheme compilers not to be fully tail recursive. For example, Kawa and Stalin are only tail recursive on self calls, and will run out of stack when general tail recursion is used. If it comes to that, first-class continuations are as required as tail recursion, and few compilers to C (or Java) other than Chicken get that 100% right. Chicken Scheme combines an optimising compiler with a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports almost all of R5RS and the important SRFIs. The compiler generates portable C code and supports tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads, and the interface to and from C code is flexible, efficient, and easy to use. The active and helpful Chicken community fixes bugs, provides support, and has contributed hundreds of Chicken libraries that make the programmer's task easier. The interpreter allows interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. Extensive documentation is supplied. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Ivan Raikov scripsit: I do believe that the Stalin compiler supports general tail recursion. Are you sure that you are talking about recent versions of Stalin? Perhaps not. (There should really be a stalin egg.) The new version is better, but I still think that ... hundreds of Chicken libraries ... deserves its own sentence. Do you think you can break up the sentence The active and helpful ... into something more concise and manageable? Okay. Oh, and apparently, compliant means that a system provides partial support for a standard, and conformant means that a system has been formally tested (and passed) against all requirements of the standard. So it would be correct to say that Chicken is R5RS-compliant, but not that it is R5RS-conformant, at least according to the explanation in this blog post: Fair enough, but I like the plain wording almost all of R5RS better; it's certainly clearer. BTW, I keep saying to and from because lots of Schemes have FFIs, but being easily embeddable is not so common. Next version: Chicken Scheme combines an optimising compiler with a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports almost all of R5RS and the important SRFIs. The compiler generates portable C code that supports tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads, and the interface to and from C libraries is flexible, efficient, and easy to use. There are hundreds of contributed Chicken libraries that make the programmer's task easier. The interpreter allows interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. The active and helpful Chicken community fixes bugs and provides support. Extensive documentation is supplied. -- Real FORTRAN programmers can program FORTRANJohn Cowan in any language. --Allen Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
On Dec 28, 2007 10:15 AM, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Saying that Chicken is R5RS-compliant is simply false advertising. It isn't. There is a whole section in the manual on deviations from the standard. It's good enough compliant. $ csi -case-insensitive -R numbers -R syntactic-closures That addresses the major deviations (although the full numeric tower is'nt even required for a conformant implementation). The other deviations seem to be backwards-compatible extensions or just clarifications of compiler limitations that one wouldn't consider breaking conformancy. The EVAL limitation is the only thing I consider true non-conformance, and that can be handled with the sandbox egg. Oh, and transcript-on and transcript-off, but no one cares about them. -- Alex ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Alex Shinn scripsit: The other deviations seem to be backwards-compatible extensions or just clarifications of compiler limitations that one wouldn't consider breaking conformancy. There is letrec as letrec*, no read/write invariance for numbers, and no bignum literals in the compiler even with the numeric egg. There is also the limit on passed arguments, but I don't know if that still applies in the new apply-hack world. Still, the list is short enough now that claiming support for R5RS is probably okay. I'm still avoiding the magic word conformance. New version: Chicken Scheme combines an optimising compiler with a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports R5RS and the important SRFIs. The compiler generates portable C code that supports tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads. The interface to and from C libraries is flexible, efficient, and easy to use. There are hundreds of contributed Chicken libraries that make the programmer's task easier. The interpreter allows interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. The active and helpful Chicken community fixes bugs and provides support. Extensive documentation is supplied. -- One Word to write them all, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] One Access to find them, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan One Excel to count them all, And thus to Windows bind them.--Mike Champion ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
I am very much nitpicking at this point, but two minor suggestions: 1. important SRFIs - popular SRFIs 2. ... libraries that make the programmer's task easier - ... practical libraries for everyday programming John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: probably okay. I'm still avoiding the magic word conformance. New version: Chicken Scheme combines an optimising compiler with a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports R5RS and the important SRFIs. The compiler generates portable C code that supports tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads. The interface to and from C libraries is flexible, efficient, and easy to use. There are hundreds of contributed Chicken libraries that make the programmer's task easier. The interpreter allows interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. The active and helpful Chicken community fixes bugs and provides support. Extensive documentation is supplied. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
On Dec 28, 2007 11:47 AM, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is letrec as letrec*, This is a perfectly legal extension - the exact R5RS text says that it is an error to refer to one of the other variables. So if you do that demons might fly out of your nose, or it may magically behave like letrec*. The R6RS text is more precise and explicitly requires a distinction, but Chicken is not R6RS. no read/write invariance for numbers, For inexact numbers, which are inexact, and R5RS makes no claims about how inexact , and they needn't be supported at all. no bignum literals in the compiler even with the numeric egg. A fully conformant implementation doesn't need to support bignums at all. There is also the limit on passed arguments, but I don't know if that still applies in the new apply-hack world. Where does R5RS say proceures must support an unlimited number of arguments? That's just a standard compiler limitation - if nothing else you're always limited by available memory. It doesn't have anything to do with standards conformance. I don't mean to nitpick, but there are plenty of other Schemes that call themselves R5RS with similar extensions. -- Alex ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Alex Shinn scripsit: no read/write invariance for numbers, For inexact numbers, which are inexact, and R5RS makes no claims about how inexact , and they needn't be supported at all. no bignum literals in the compiler even with the numeric egg. A fully conformant implementation doesn't need to support bignums at all. That's true, but if it does support them, it has to support them *this* way. In particular, a given number might be unrepresentable in a Scheme, but if representable at all, it must be representable as a source code literal. There is also the limit on passed arguments, but I don't know if that still applies in the new apply-hack world. Where does R5RS say proceures must support an unlimited number of arguments? That's just a standard compiler limitation - if nothing else you're always limited by available memory. It doesn't have anything to do with standards conformance. This problem mostly bites when you use APPLY. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht. --Albert Einstein ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Latest version incorporating Ivan's tweaks: Chicken Scheme combines an optimising compiler with a reasonably fast interpreter. It supports R5RS and the popular SRFIs. The compiler generates portable C code that supports tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads. The interface to and from C libraries is flexible, efficient, and easy to use. There are hundreds of contributed Chicken practical libraries for everyday programming. The interpreter allows interactive use, fast prototyping, debugging, and scripting. The active and helpful Chicken community fixes bugs and provides support. Extensive documentation is supplied. -- Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes:John Cowan I admire him, I freely admit it, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan and when his time comes I shall[EMAIL PROTECTED] buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
On Dec 23, 2007 2:34 AM, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: felix winkelmann scripsit: Chicken's interpreter is not strongly performant, but does provide strong debugging facilities. I'd remove that last sentence above. I think it's true: if you want a fast interpreter, you wouldn't use csi, would you? No use implying that Chicken is something it isn't. This is what I get, and what others will get, from that sentence: Chicken is slow. It would be equally true to say that Chicken comes with a reasonably fast interpreter for interactive use and scripting. Imagine this blurb for python: Python, the high-level, interactive object oriented language, includes an extensive class library with lots of goodies for network programming, system administration, sounds and graphics. It's also somewhat slow and not particularly functional, but that hardly matters in practice. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Zbigniew scripsit: It would be equally true to say that Chicken comes with a reasonably fast interpreter for interactive use and scripting. Okay, I'm good with that. Here's the text now: Chicken is an optimizing batch compiler for the R5RS Scheme language. It produces portable, efficient C supporting tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads. Interfacing to and from C is emphasized, including both static and dynamic loading of Chicken code, with full support for Posix functions. Chicken comes with a reasonably fast interpreter for interactive use, debugging, and scripting. Chicken also has a repository with hundreds of user-contributed eggs, including most SRFIs and many other widely available Scheme libraries. Any further contributions? Imagine this blurb for python: Point taken. -- The first thing you learn in a lawin' familyJohn Cowan is that there ain't no definite answers [EMAIL PROTECTED] to anything. --Calpurnia in To Kill A Mockingbird ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
On Dec 23, 2007 5:34 PM, John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: felix winkelmann scripsit: Chicken's interpreter is not strongly performant, but does provide strong debugging facilities. I'd remove that last sentence above. I think it's true: if you want a fast interpreter, you wouldn't use csi, would you? No use implying that Chicken is something it isn't. It's misleading because it's beside the point. When you need speed, you use the compiler. When you don't need speed, any interpreter will do, and the fact that csi is on the slow end of something that is already slow doesn't mean much. The cases where EVAL speed really matter are quite rare so it's confusing to mention them in such a short description. Most newcomers will be used to either entirely compiled or entirely interpreted languages, and if you say that Chicken's EVAL is slow they'll likely assume the language as a whole is slow. I also have issues with the second part of that sentence - I would not consider csi's debugging facilities strong compared to other Scheme implementations (it's about average, and I think we need to raise the bar on Scheme debuggers in general). -- Alex ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
felix winkelmann scripsit: Chicken's interpreter is not strongly performant, but does provide strong debugging facilities. I'd remove that last sentence above. I think it's true: if you want a fast interpreter, you wouldn't use csi, would you? No use implying that Chicken is something it isn't. -- John Cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://ccil.org/~cowan The exception proves the rule. Dimbulbs think: Your counterexample proves my theory. Latin students think 'Probat' means 'tests': the exception puts the rule to the proof. But legal historians know it means Evidence for an exception is evidence of the existence of a rule in cases not excepted from. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
felix winkelmann escreveu: On Dec 20, 2007 11:50 AM, Tobia Conforto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robin Lee Powell wrote: http://packages.debian.org/sid/chicken-bin It certainly seems production quality and decently performant to me; does the Chicken community still agree with the statements there? I find them biased and misleading. Those statements, coupled with the maintainer's laziness in updating the packages, are probably turning quite a few people away from Chicken. Either he is acting in bad faith, or he's lost interest in it. In any case I would welcome a change. I actually contacted the maintainer a while ago asking for a change of the description - AFAIK he wanted to do that but perhaps he forgot. Perhaps it would be best for us to brainstorm what the new description is going to be and then submit it once it is complete, for them to review and include in the new packages. In addition, the description should say something about Chicken itself. As it stands, anyone who has read Cheney's paper probably already knows about Chicken, so it should be more of a footnote. There's no mention about eggs either, and that (along with the C generation) should be one of the major selling points. Stephen ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Stephen Eilert scripsit: Perhaps it would be best for us to brainstorm what the new description is going to be and then submit it once it is complete, for them to review and include in the new packages. Here's some suggested text for wordsmithing. It assumes the reader knows something about Scheme, which I think is plausible, and emphasizes Chicken's unique selling points. It's a boiling-down of the call/cc.org home page. Chicken is an optimizing batch compiler for the R5RS Scheme language. It produces portable, efficient C supporting tail recursion, first-class continuations, and lightweight threads. Interfacing to and from C is emphasized, including both static and dynamic loading of Chicken code, with full support for Posix functions. Chicken's interpreter is not strongly performant, but does provide strong debugging facilities. Chicken also has a repository with hundreds of user-contributed eggs, including most SRFIs and many other widely available Scheme libraries. Comments? -- I could dance with you till the cowsJohn Cowan come home. On second thought, I'd http://www.ccil.org/~cowan rather dance with the cows when you [EMAIL PROTECTED] came home. --Rufus T. Firefly ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Peter Busser scripsit: So what can an optimizing buzzword-compliant batch compiler for the R5RS Scheme language do for me to make my life better/easier/more exciting/etc.? Well, Debian descriptions are meant to describe, not to advertise the product. I was simply trying to answer the question, What makes this Scheme different from all other Schemes? -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan[EMAIL PROTECTED] You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn. You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn. Clear all so! `Tis a Jute (Finnegans Wake 16.5) ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
[Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
Robin Lee Powell wrote: http://packages.debian.org/sid/chicken-bin It certainly seems production quality and decently performant to me; does the Chicken community still agree with the statements there? I find them biased and misleading. Those statements, coupled with the maintainer's laziness in updating the packages, are probably turning quite a few people away from Chicken. Either he is acting in bad faith, or he's lost interest in it. In any case I would welcome a change. Tobia ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Re: Debian slander?
On Dec 20, 2007 11:50 AM, Tobia Conforto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robin Lee Powell wrote: http://packages.debian.org/sid/chicken-bin It certainly seems production quality and decently performant to me; does the Chicken community still agree with the statements there? I find them biased and misleading. Those statements, coupled with the maintainer's laziness in updating the packages, are probably turning quite a few people away from Chicken. Either he is acting in bad faith, or he's lost interest in it. In any case I would welcome a change. I actually contacted the maintainer a while ago asking for a change of the description - AFAIK he wanted to do that but perhaps he forgot. cheers, felix ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
