4 ms·
There's this new implementation called "gerbil"[1] which runs on top of gambit, is still very young but looks very promising. It's opinionated in a good way (I
by rgrau 8y ago
There's this new implementation called "gerbil"[1] which runs on top of gambit, is still very young but looks very promising.
It's opinionated in a good way (IMHO).
[1]. https://cons.io/ https://cons.io/
- JasonFruit 8y agoLooking at it, I'd call it a new language, not a Scheme implementation. Its semantics are much different from Scheme's.
- WindowsFon4life 8y agoUmm superficially you could say it is anything. The reality is it IS Scheme. (define (foo bar) (format "hi ~a" bar)) works just fine. As will any of the Scheme code, as it's merely syntactic sugar, (import :std/sugar) that you are confusing with a whole new language.
- JasonFruit 8y agoLook at things like: (define lst '(4 5 6)) (set! (car lst) 3) (display (car lst)) ;; 3 That's a pretty serious semantic departure. It's at least as different from RnRS as Racket, which insists it is not Scheme.
- kbp 8y agoThere's an SRFI for generalised set! that lots of implementations (Racket, Guile, Chicken, etc) support: https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-17/srfi-17.html https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-17/srfi-17.html
- JasonFruit 8y agoNeat. Learn something new every day.
- soegaard 8y agoIt's not in widespread use though.
- WindowsFon4life 8y agoI was requesting valid scheme that did not work properly. Given the https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ shows Gerbil passing more tests than many other implementations, it seems hard to call it a "non-scheme".