Re: GNU and Lisp

[Matthieu Lemerre]

"Alfred M\. Szmidt" <address@hidden> writes:

>    There are two lisp implementations on the GNU project:
>
> Three, you forgot about GNU Common Lisp.

There is also GNU CLISP, and GNU/MIT Scheme.

>
>    So the work consist on write wrapper libraries in C for cover the
>hurd API, including trivfs, netfs, and so.
>
> I'd rather see wrappers for somethings that are in the Hurd specific
> parts of glibc.  I can't imagin why someone would want to write a
> translator in scheme for example, but being able to interact with
> translators is far more plausible (setting translators on a node,
> removing, getting information about them, etc).
>

I think that being able to write translators using scripting languages
(or scripting/compiled languages like lisp) would be very useful.

People may want to write fortune-like translators, which could be
done more quiclky than in C.

Another example, a mailbox->maildir (or opposite) translator could be
easily prototyped using a scripting language.

Or basically, if you has to fed a program with a script, and the
program does not read from pipe but only from file (like modern GUI
applications), you may want to write a translator for that (providing
that you don't want to use mkfifo, like in the fortune translator).

> In other words, I think that writting translators in scheme can wait.
> But if you wish to persue that, then that is your choice. :-)
>

Surely it isn't the most important thing :).  Just for people here's
information, I remember that someone wrote a perl library which
enabled to write translators in Perl.

Thanks,
Matthieu