3 ms·

We (mostly Matthew) have opened plenty of pull requests, although not for the most recent changes since they rely on earlier ones that are not merged. The Chez

by samth 6y ago

We (mostly Matthew) have opened plenty of pull requests, although not for the most recent changes since they rely on earlier ones that are not merged. The Chez maintainers move at a deliberate pace, and don't necessarily share all the same priorities as Racket. But we're very much in touch with them, and they've helped develop even some of the changes that aren't upstream. I don't think it's likely that we'll move back to pure upstream Chez in the near future, but it's not quite a fork either. You can read more about some of these issues in our ICFP 2019 paper: https://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/rkt-on-chez/ https://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/rkt-on-chez/ which is co-authored with the Chez maintainers.

sitkack 6y ago
It seems like if Racket-Chez continues to track Cisco-Chez that it won't really matter and we can continue to live under one roof. I'll read the Racket on Chez papers. Are there plans for more backends? RISC-V, Wasm or Scheme (not Chez specific)? Wasm would be interesting as that would also enable a path to integrate with Graal. I understand that Wasm doesn't yet support native tail calls, so that would have to have to be addressed. > A Racket-implemented layer of Racket CS must be translated to Scheme to run on top of Chez Scheme. That contract between Racket and Chez for how Racket runs on Chez, I think that is fairly interesting from a language engineering perspective. It seems like it could be a nice RRRS (Revised Report on Racket on Scheme). What are your thoughts on Shen?
- samth 6y ago
  Paulo Matos is working on a RISC-V backend. Wasm would be very nice to have; I think compile-to-web is a big missing piece although there are potentially other ways to do it. For Graal I think a direct implementation would be nice. Compiling to other Schemes would be great, and I think we're in a good position to make that happen now. I think the contract isn't that interesting in a sense -- it's just most of Chez. But the paper does talk about that sort of thing.

by samth 6y ago

sitkack 6y ago

It seems like if Racket-Chez continues to track Cisco-Chez that it won't really matter and we can continue to live under one roof. I'll read the Racket on Chez papers. Are there plans for more backends? RISC-V, Wasm or Scheme (not Chez specific)? Wasm would be interesting as that would also enable a path to integrate with Graal. I understand that Wasm doesn't yet support native tail calls, so that would have to have to be addressed. > A Racket-implemented layer of Racket CS must be translated to Scheme to run on top of Chez Scheme. That contract between Racket and Chez for how Racket runs on Chez, I think that is fairly interesting from a language engineering perspective. It seems like it could be a nice RRRS (Revised Report on Racket on Scheme). What are your thoughts on Shen?

samth 6y ago
Paulo Matos is working on a RISC-V backend. Wasm would be very nice to have; I think compile-to-web is a big missing piece although there are potentially other ways to do it. For Graal I think a direct implementation would be nice. Compiling to other Schemes would be great, and I think we're in a good position to make that happen now. I think the contract isn't that interesting in a sense -- it's just most of Chez. But the paper does talk about that sort of thing.