"Perry E. Metzger" <perry_at_piermont.com> writes:
> "Harvey J. Stein" writes:
> > My question to this
> > view is if this is the case then why are there so many different C
> > compilers/Fortran compilers/...?
>
> 1) to some extent, there is only one C compiler left in the open
> source community, and it is GCC.
You mean egcs? :-)
There have been many C compilers, and there have been a few free
ones. Free ones is a more recent phenomena.
> 2) C code from different compilers mix just fine. Scheme is so loosely
> defined except at its very core that this isn't possible in our
> world. Furthermore, things like foreign function interfaces and large
> packages like the STk Tk functionality can't be ported easily.
So, what's missing is a standard that's sufficiently rich to allow
good work to be done in a C/unix/windows centric world. The issue
isn't proliferation of incompatible implementations. The issue is
sufficiently rich standards.
> > 3. Put your money where your mouth is.
> >
> > If you think it's a good idea to merge Scheme implementations, then do
> > it! Why argue about it on the net? Or is the idea to try to convince
> > developers to do the work for you?
>
> I could do a "merge" myself, but the result would be three schemes
> instead of two. Without the cooperation of the STk and Guile
> communities, what would the point be?
May the best implementation win. You might get some cooperation in
advance by argument/discussion, but it'd be misplaced. The real
cooperation would come when you start integrating patches from people
who downloaded your first cut.
--
Harvey J. Stein
BFM Financial Research
hjstein_at_bfr.co.il
Received on Tue Oct 06 1998 - 21:24:15 CEST