Re: [Chicken-users] Problems with the dollar egg.
On 02/03/14 17:27, John Cowan wrote: Daniel Carrera scripsit: Does that apply to other languages like Python? Python does not work in the Chicken interpreter either. :-) (Though in principle one could write a Python egg using the Python/C API.) There's slightly more to it than this, however. The FFI only works in compiled code, it's true. But you can compile a module that uses the FFI, then use that module from the interpreter. You just can't use the FFI *directly* because it works by integrating with the compiler's generation of C code, which is then compiled by gcc. Whereas the interpreter interprets directly, rather than going via C, so the FFI doesn't have a C stage to integrate with. This is similar to the situation with Python - to wrap a C library in Python, you compile a stub module that you can then load from the Python interpreter and away you go. The difference is that the stub module is written in C, rather than Python; while Chicken FFI stubs are written in whatever mix of Chicken and C you find convenient. ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Problems with the dollar egg.
On 3 March 2014 17:57, Alaric Snell-Pym ala...@snell-pym.org.uk wrote: Python does not work in the Chicken interpreter either. :-) (Though in principle one could write a Python egg using the Python/C API.) There's slightly more to it than this, however. The FFI only works in compiled code, it's true. But you can compile a module that uses the FFI, then use that module from the interpreter. You just can't use the FFI *directly* because it works by integrating with the compiler's generation of C code, which is then compiled by gcc. Whereas the interpreter interprets directly, rather than going via C, so the FFI doesn't have a C stage to integrate with. This is similar to the situation with Python - to wrap a C library in Python, you compile a stub module that you can then load from the Python interpreter and away you go. The difference is that the stub module is written in C, rather than Python; while Chicken FFI stubs are written in whatever mix of Chicken and C you find convenient. Thanks. That's an important distinction. So if I want to call a couple of C functions, I can make a very small module that just gives me Scheme wrappers for those and load that in the REPL. I am currently a bit torn between Chicken and Racket. The thing about Racket is that DrRacket does have its annoyances (e.g. using tabs, opening files) to compensate for its cool features (e.g. macro stepper). The Racket REPL does nice syntax highlighting and indentation, but it doesn't have history the way CSI+Readline does. I also note that they don't want to be perceived as a Scheme dialect, and do not currently plan to work on R7RS. I guess I'll continue playing with both Chicken and Racket until I know enough to form a preference. Cheers, Daniel. -- When an engineer says that something can't be done, it's a code phrase that means it's not fun to do. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Problems with the dollar egg.
On 03/03/14 17:10, Daniel Carrera wrote: I guess I'll continue playing with both Chicken and Racket until I know enough to form a preference. Depending on what kind of code you want to write, you can do a lot in the language they have in common and then run the same code in whatever environment best suits your current activity... Might need some ugly mechanism to deal with module export/import interop, however! ABS -- Alaric Snell-Pym http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Problems with the dollar egg.
Alaric Snell-Pym scripsit: Depending on what kind of code you want to write, you can do a lot in the language they have in common and then run the same code in whatever environment best suits your current activity... Indeed. The Schemer with just one Scheme is not the true Schemer. That implementation is not the true implementation. Might need some ugly mechanism to deal with module export/import interop, however! Alas, yes. One of the main goals of R7RS is to standardize that. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Sir, I quite agree with you, but what are we two against so many? --George Bernard Shaw, to a man booing at the opening of _Arms and the Man_ ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Problems with the dollar egg.
On 2 March 2014 17:34, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Daniel Carrera scripsit: Error: unbound variable: foreign-lambda* The Chicken FFI does not work in the interpreter. Ok. :-( Does that apply to other languages like Python? I have installed the numbers egg. When I run (use numbers) I get a lot of warnings to the effect of: I can't replicate this. The procedures are being overridden as explained, but you shouldn't see warnings about them unless you are explicitly importing the scheme or chicken libraries, which is never necessary outside a module. In a module, just ignore the warnings. Ok. I'll leave it for now. I don't need the full numeric tower, I'm just exploring. Cheers, Daniel. -- When an engineer says that something can't be done, it's a code phrase that means it's not fun to do. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Problems with the dollar egg.
Daniel Carrera scripsit: Does that apply to other languages like Python? Python does not work in the Chicken interpreter either. :-) (Though in principle one could write a Python egg using the Python/C API.) But Python's FFI is accessible from the CPython interpreter, since there is no other (commonly used) interface to CPython. Chicken is primarily a compiled Scheme: the interpreter is slow and inefficient, and provided mostly for testing, debugging, and simple scripting. If you are interested in interpreter-based Schemes exclusively, I recommend Chibi Scheme. -- John Cowan co...@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants. --Isaac Newton ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Problems with the dollar egg.
On 2 March 2014 18:27, John Cowan co...@mercury.ccil.org wrote: Chicken is primarily a compiled Scheme: the interpreter is slow and inefficient, and provided mostly for testing, debugging, and simple scripting. If you are interested in interpreter-based Schemes exclusively, I recommend Chibi Scheme. Chibi is clearly for embedding... I don't know... and it doesn't seem to have a module collection or documentation comparable to Chicken. I just tried Chibi, but even with (chibi repl) I think its REPL is not as good as CSI with GNU Readline. I guess that in my ideal world I would like to play with a mature Scheme with many modules, that can be compiled, has FFI, a nice interpreter, and plans to support R7RS... So, I guess that what I want doesn't exist. Cheers, Daniel. -- When an engineer says that something can't be done, it's a code phrase that means it's not fun to do. ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
Re: [Chicken-users] Problems with the dollar egg.
Daniel Carrera scripsit: I just tried Chibi, but even with (chibi repl) I think its REPL is not as good as CSI with GNU Readline. I guess that in my ideal world I would like to play with a mature Scheme with many modules, that can be compiled, has FFI, a nice interpreter, and plans to support R7RS... So, I guess that what I want doesn't exist. Racket is probably your best bet in that case. It doesn't have an AOT compiler like Chicken's, but its JIT compiler is decent. Plenty of modules, FFI, excellent interpreter and debugging tools. I don't know what their R7RS story will be yet. -- Newbies always ask: John Cowan Elements or attributes? http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Which will serve me best? co...@ccil.org Those who know roar like lions; Wise hackers smile like tigers. --a tanka, or extended haiku ___ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
