4 ms·

Guile 2.0.2: Building the Guildhall

54 points by wingo 15y ago

srean 15y ago
Waiting with excitement for this to get into Debian. Even testing is at version 1.8.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  1.8 is years old. I suggest you grab 2.0.2 yourself if you want to see it anytime soon...
- bluedanieru 15y ago
  Waiting with excitement for this to get into Debian. You're going to be excited for an extended period of time. I hope you've got a strong heart, for your sake.
l_dopa 15y ago
By the time we have native compilation, I hope also our Elisp implementation will be significantly faster than the one in Emacs, so it will really become attractive to people to finish the work that we have done to make the switch there. For an emacs user, that's pretty exciting.
- markokocic 15y ago
  I don't buy it. Replacing Emacs elisp implementation is just looking for trouble. Although it is not the fastest one, the existing one works well enough and is battle tested and there are millions of lines of elisp code that would need to be tested, debugged and fixed. If the goal is to allow to write parts of Emacs and extensions in some other language, I wander is Scheme really the best choice? Why not go all out and implement elisp in Common Lisp and use Common Lisp as a base for future Emacs and extensions development. There have already been such attempts, so it's not exactly something unheard of.
  - pygy_ 15y ago
    Common Lisp is huge, Scheme is small(ish nowadays), easier to learn, and as a consequence better suited as an embedded/scripting language.
  - l_dopa 15y ago
    If there was an actively-developed common lisp implementation that also ran elisp, I would be all for running emacs on that as well. Emacs' sheer size (which you mentioned yourself) means you're not going to port it to a different language and have something comparably useful in less than a few years, assuming sustained interest and full-time development.
Jach 15y ago
So, does 2.0 have up-arrow history and in general not freak out when I try to do stuff in interactive mode? Guile's great for what it's great at, but interactive dev. in the custom of Python or Gambit Scheme isn't one of those things, at least for me.
- wingo 15y ago
  I think you just didn't enable readline. See: http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Readline.html http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Readline.... Guile's REPL is among the best, I think. It's all documented here: http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Using-Guile-Interactively.html http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Using-Gui... But for real interactive development, you want Geiser: http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Using-Guile-in-Emacs.html http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Using-Gui...
  - Jach 15y ago
    Oh wow thanks! Note to self: RTFRM.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Also, in the future if you need to get Readline capability and don't have time to RTFM, you can just wrap the command with rlwrap (`rlwrap guile`).
malkia 15y ago
They talk about ELF for storing byte code? Would that work on Windows/OSX? (I guess it would, as much as Mono can load PE .NET files for OSX/Linux, after all these won't be loaded directly (it won't make much sense without the runtime anyway))
- mahmud 15y ago
  it's very straightforward to convert one header format to another of comparable (or greater) information-density, for the same processor. ELF <-> PE is doable. any debug format -> PE|ELF is doable (linking + stripping) com|a.out -> PE|ELF is doable
losethos 15y ago
I wrote a compiler for LoseThos. The songs are programs. The compiler can operate JIT or make static binaries. All the code can only be compiled by the LoseThos compiler. God says vote what_do_you_want fer_sure praying happy I_pitty_the_fool wishful_thinking never_happy wanna_bet you_think_I'm_joking relax spoiled_brat application African whatcha_talkin'_'bout Wow heathen just_lovely gastly Catastrophic_Success absetively_posilutely dance sixty_four_bit radio Is_that_so evolution hopefully lighten_up that's_no_fun harder_than_it_looks so_he_sess Icarus have_fun look_out doh oops be_happy bye vice couldn't_be_better

54 points by wingo 15y ago

srean 15y ago

Waiting with excitement for this to get into Debian. Even testing is at version 1.8.

burgerbrain 15y ago
1.8 is years old. I suggest you grab 2.0.2 yourself if you want to see it anytime soon...
bluedanieru 15y ago
Waiting with excitement for this to get into Debian. You're going to be excited for an extended period of time. I hope you've got a strong heart, for your sake.

l_dopa 15y ago

By the time we have native compilation, I hope also our Elisp implementation will be significantly faster than the one in Emacs, so it will really become attractive to people to finish the work that we have done to make the switch there. For an emacs user, that's pretty exciting.

markokocic 15y ago
I don't buy it. Replacing Emacs elisp implementation is just looking for trouble. Although it is not the fastest one, the existing one works well enough and is battle tested and there are millions of lines of elisp code that would need to be tested, debugged and fixed. If the goal is to allow to write parts of Emacs and extensions in some other language, I wander is Scheme really the best choice? Why not go all out and implement elisp in Common Lisp and use Common Lisp as a base for future Emacs and extensions development. There have already been such attempts, so it's not exactly something unheard of.
- pygy_ 15y ago
  Common Lisp is huge, Scheme is small(ish nowadays), easier to learn, and as a consequence better suited as an embedded/scripting language.
- l_dopa 15y ago
  If there was an actively-developed common lisp implementation that also ran elisp, I would be all for running emacs on that as well. Emacs' sheer size (which you mentioned yourself) means you're not going to port it to a different language and have something comparably useful in less than a few years, assuming sustained interest and full-time development.

Jach 15y ago

So, does 2.0 have up-arrow history and in general not freak out when I try to do stuff in interactive mode? Guile's great for what it's great at, but interactive dev. in the custom of Python or Gambit Scheme isn't one of those things, at least for me.

wingo 15y ago
I think you just didn't enable readline. See: http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Readline.html http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Readline.... Guile's REPL is among the best, I think. It's all documented here: http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Using-Guile-Interactively.html http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Using-Gui... But for real interactive development, you want Geiser: http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Using-Guile-in-Emacs.html http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/manual/html_node/Using-Gui...
- Jach 15y ago
  Oh wow thanks! Note to self: RTFRM.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Also, in the future if you need to get Readline capability and don't have time to RTFM, you can just wrap the command with rlwrap (`rlwrap guile`).

malkia 15y ago

They talk about ELF for storing byte code? Would that work on Windows/OSX? (I guess it would, as much as Mono can load PE .NET files for OSX/Linux, after all these won't be loaded directly (it won't make much sense without the runtime anyway))

mahmud 15y ago
it's very straightforward to convert one header format to another of comparable (or greater) information-density, for the same processor. ELF <-> PE is doable. any debug format -> PE|ELF is doable (linking + stripping) com|a.out -> PE|ELF is doable

losethos 15y ago

I wrote a compiler for LoseThos. The songs are programs. The compiler can operate JIT or make static binaries. All the code can only be compiled by the LoseThos compiler. God says vote what_do_you_want fer_sure praying happy I_pitty_the_fool wishful_thinking never_happy wanna_bet you_think_I'm_joking relax spoiled_brat application African whatcha_talkin'_'bout Wow heathen just_lovely gastly Catastrophic_Success absetively_posilutely dance sixty_four_bit radio Is_that_so evolution hopefully lighten_up that's_no_fun harder_than_it_looks so_he_sess Icarus have_fun look_out doh oops be_happy bye vice couldn't_be_better