Russ McManus <russell.mcmanus_at_gs.com> writes:
> I would like to make a potentially controversial suggestion. Perhaps
> guile could become the base for STk. I know some guile/stk work has
> gone on already, and that STk and bigloo are getting closer together,
> also.
Please, please, please don't do this!
As far as I'm concerned, both STk & Bigloo are substantially superior
to Guile, in terms of speed, features & the quality of the underlying
C implementation itself.
> I love to use STk, but I tend to use guile for it's ease of embedding.
> Then I can't use STk. The Tk binding for guile stinks, compared to
> STk. If I could have STk in guile, I would stand up and do a Snoopy
> dance, I'd be so happy. I'm quite familiar with guile, so I could be
> a resource for answering questions about how to get something working
> that is currently implemented in the STk interpreter.
If your concern is embedding, it'd be better to add a convenent
embedding mechanism to STk than to base STk on Guile.
> Some of the work is already done; there is a significant piece of
> STklos implemented and downloadable from
> ftp://www.read-bean.com/pub/guile.
If your concern is the Tk interface for Guile, then you should just
finish off the above.
> Using guile has it's own set of issues, but there are some
> considerable advantages, too. For one thing, there is a dedicated
> maintainer for the interpreter itself. Also, there is a growing
> developer community. There is a C compiler for Scheme code in guile
> (not as nice as bigloo, I agree), too.
This is misleading. Guile is still buggier than STk & Bigloo. Both
STk & Bigloo also have growing developer communities. Both STk &
Bigloo have dedicated maintainers.
The Guile compiler (Hobbit) has lots of problems. For one thing, it
compiles arithmetic to C artithmetic - not to scheme arithmetic. It's
also a pain in the ass to use cleanly.
--
Harvey J. Stein
BFM Financial Research
hjstein_at_bfr.co.il
Received on Sun Oct 04 1998 - 09:08:41 CEST