[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: the future of Guile
From: |
Julian Graham |
Subject: |
Re: the future of Guile |
Date: |
Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:05:48 -0500 |
I've been frustrated with the situation, too. Might I direct your
attention to the Snow project? (http://snow.iro.umontreal.ca/)
One of the difficulties with these things is that they kind of require
a certain critical mass to establish themselves, and, so far,
nothing's really done that. (SLIB, maybe?) One thing that seems
apparent to me, though, is that any good packaging / library solution
is going to be cross-interpreter, so we should pay attention to what's
going on with PLT, Chicken, etc.
On Dec 5, 2007 10:40 AM, Mike Gran <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 10:01 +0100, Marco Maggi wrote:
>
> > > Pre-answer to all: the most important thing is to make clear
> > > what are the priorities. With a "language for extensions"
> > > (LFE) there are certain priorities, with a "Scheme
> > > implementation" (SI) there are others. I fear that if no
> > > choice is made Guile will be wiped out by other Schemes.
>
> As far as being an LFE, 1.8.x has been a big improvement over 1.6.
> The API is much cleaner when wrapping stuff by hand.
>
> > From: Roland Orre <address@hidden>
>
> > Today, however, I find that there are nearly no extension
> > libraries available for guile. As a shell scripting language
> > I prefer python because it has a very simple and clean
> > shell interface. To extend my applications beyond real number
> > crunching with e.g. graphical interphases (currently working
> > with xlib...) I feel a limitation and have more and more often
> > looked upon python where a lot of libraries are available for
> > GUI, database and you name it.
>
> One problem here is that there does need to be a richer library
> that is official and downloadable right from
> www.gnu.org/software/guile. Unit test, documentation,
> cgi, http, sql, md5, utf8, xml, and perhaps pickle.
>
> Much has been done (GEE, Guile-lib, guile-gtk, all of TTN),
> but, each has its own packaging scheme, documentation
> scheme. None of them are released in a coordinated manner
> with the Guile releases themselves.
>
> This goes back to the packaging problem. After I've written a program,
> I'd like to give it away for others to use. Giving code away in a scripting
> language should be easy. It isn't easy here.
>
> First, dependencies on the many libraries are
> difficult to coordinate.
>
> Second, most non-trivial scripts require the whole of the configure,
> make, make install, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, %load-path overhead.
>
> Where is the analog of a Java jar file?
>
> Apologies if my rant has drifted off topic.
- Re: the future of Guile, (continued)
- Re: the future of guile, Daniel Llorens del Río, 2007/12/04
- Re: the future of Guile, Marco Maggi, 2007/12/05
- Re: the future of Guile, Mike Gran, 2007/12/05
- Re: the future of Guile, Marco Maggi, 2007/12/05
- Re: the future of Guile, Marco Maggi, 2007/12/05
- Re: the future of Guile, Kjetil S. Matheussen, 2007/12/06
- Re: the future of Guile, Marco Maggi, 2007/12/07
- Re: the future of Guile, Kjetil S. Matheussen, 2007/12/07