4 ms·

> I'm curious why people don't prefer Chez Scheme to Racket if it is so fast and can make real binaries (I think anyway). Just a FYI for those following along

by e12e 10y ago

> I'm curious why people don't prefer Chez Scheme to Racket if it is so fast and can make real binaries (I think anyway). Just a FYI for those following along at home, racket comes with built-in support for bundling programs as executables - but as I understand it those are really archives with a vm and (byte?)code. I recently tried on Windows, and a "hello world" graphical app was a ~11mb - not bad IMNHO - but bigger than the equivalent Lazarus / free pascal app.

shakna 10y ago
Try it again against Chicken and Gambit, which actually produce native executables. There's a decent difference in size, and often in speed.
- e12e 10y ago
  I will, if I find the time. Do they support graphical applications across Mac, Linux and Windows?
  - shakna 10y ago
    Chicken uses iup, which you can find in Racket as well. Gambit is... Spartan. You'd have to write some bindings yourself.
throwaway7645 10y ago
Yea, I'd expect it to be big, but 10 MB is still easily distributable, so not bad. How is the licensing though? Do you have to include the source (GPL) or is that only if you modify the source?
- e12e 10y ago
  Racket is LGPL - but I'm not crystal clear on the implications for executables - according to the racket team (in this random reddit thread) - it looks like they see stand alone executables as being fine under their LGPL : https://www.reddit.com/r/scheme/comments/2bu321/not_that_i_dont_like_racket/ https://www.reddit.com/r/scheme/comments/2bu321/not_that_i_d... Shouldn't be too far off from gcc/glibc really.
  - soegaard 10y ago
    Not for long! The Racket community is in the process of relicensing under a more permissive license. See https://github.com/racket/racket/issues/1570 https://github.com/racket/racket/issues/1570