Re: [Chicken-users] chicken and threads (can they be disabled)

[Thomas Bushnell BSG]

Chicken Scheme is an excellent choice for what you're doing, in my
opinion, but it does lack a sufficient interface to Unix syscalls.

I am using it to do asynchronous I/O using non-blocking sockets and
epoll, and it works wonderfully.  What you need to do is use the FFI to
interface with the syscalls you want.  Because the Chicken FFI is so
clean and simple to use, it is a joy.

Thomas


On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 18:30 -0800, Dru Nelson wrote:
> hi,
> 
> 
> I am considering using chicken for a Unix app. The app is currently in
> Ruby. Ruby was a good start,
> but some of the issues I outline below exist in that implementation.
> 
> 
> I evaluated most Scheme implementations from a research point of view
> and it looks
> like chicken fits my needs the best. It compiles to C, is portable,
> has a good community,
> a novel GC, excellent FFI, and a system for libraries (eggs). I want
> to avoid C, but get 
> decent performance. Overall, chicken looks like a very pragmatic
> system that might solve this.
> 
> 
> For this particular application, it is really important that I can get
> access to the raw Unix/Posix API for I/O handling.
> This is the problem I've run into with many languages over the years.
> They attempt to provide support for thread systems which invariably
> taints how IO is handled. I just need to be able to cleanly perform
> IO, fork, select etc. without concern that the system call is being
> abstracted or wrapped with additional logic.
> 
> 
> Some languages have support for this via a compilation step
> (--no-threads). Does Chicken have this capability?
> Should I use the existing eggs/units for Posix and Socket IO or use
> the ffi?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cheers,
> 
> 
> dru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dru nelson
> cto
> brightroll
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Chicken-users mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users