3 ms·
I've been programming with ELisp, CL and Scheme for a long time. Somehow Guile feels like an odd choice. Why not Chicken scheme, or Racket, or Bigloo; which are
by tenfingers 12y ago
I've been programming with ELisp, CL and Scheme for a long time. Somehow Guile feels like an odd choice. Why not Chicken scheme, or Racket, or Bigloo; which are the top scheme environments you can choose from?
AFAIK, Guile is not used much beyond a few random projects. Maybe I just don't know Guile, really. Maybe it has a decent implementation afterall.
However, I would have gone CL.
There are several "emacs-like" editors implemented in CL:
http://www.cliki.net/cl-emacs http://www.cliki.net/cl-emacs
I would argue that implementing ELisp support in Climacs is actually easier, so we can run all the elisp stuff we already have, and slowly move on.
- apgwoz 12y agoGuile was designed as an extension language, which CL was not. So, that's one reason. Guile also has a something like 90% working implementation of an elisp compiler to guile bytecode, a JavaScript implementation and (I think, though may be wrong) a working Lua compiler. None of the other mentioned scheme implementations were designed for embedding, even if they are fine implementations themselves (which they are).
- levosmetalo 12y agoIf we consider "designed for embedding" as a driving point we can always take ECL (embeddable/extensible common lisp) as a base and get both very nice ffi and threading while still being CL.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]