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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
