|
From: | Felix |
Subject: | Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken benchmarks |
Date: | Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:09:53 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530 |
Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Felix <address@hidden> writes:But note that it doesn't really make sense to compare Bigloo (or Scheme->C or Stalin, for that matter) with Chicken, Gambit or other compilers that can handle full tail-call optimization and first class continuations. Providing support for these constructs means an implementer has to pay a certain price for *all* code (except when you can generate pure native code, where you have a little bit more flexibility).Actually it doesn't. It is only a price to be paid if you are going to compile into C which doesn't support tail calls. Perhaps if we were to produce a scheme front end for gcc or something similar the problem would go away...
You are not the first who had this idea. The GCC source-code is definitely too big and complex for me, but I don't know about others. Moreover just maintaining something like that, keeping in pace with the normal GCC development seems to be a rather exhausting thing to do. Then there are installation and configuration steps to be done (not that this is any easier with Chicken... ;-) I think it is probably more rewarding is a decent, free R5RS compiler targeting x86 machine code, with an open design that can incorporate experimental extensions easily. cheers, felix
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |