[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?
From: |
Sam Tregar |
Subject: |
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_? |
Date: |
Fri, 11 May 2001 02:02:41 -0400 (EDT) |
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Jeff Read wrote:
> I don't know how the Guile developers feel but it seems to me as
> though Microsoft .NET got there sooner, and did it better.
Sooner? As in next year? I mean, it's not actually running anyone's
applications, is it?
> At least, that's the perception, as everybody and their brother (even
> the Perl and Python guys) are rallying behind .NET as THE
> cross-platform, language-agnostic development solution. (There is even
> a .NET Scheme implementation somewhere...)
Perl 6, at least, isn't wedded to any particular platform. The
architecture is being designed to allow for pluggable backends - JVM,
.NET, compiled C, etc. It's also being designed to have a redefinable
parser. Maybe Guile will morph into a parser that produces Perl 6 IR?
There was some brief talk on p6-internals last week about how
continuations might work in Perl.
> It's pretty amazing that RMS set forth these lofty goals for Guile,
> and years later all that most anybody uses it for is a damned fine
> embedded or standalone Scheme interpreter (which it is... damned fine,
> that is). As for me, I don't care if Guile never groks Perl or Tcl
> code; I'd rather build programs with it than with .NET any day.
Indeed. Maybe the GNU Script position is still open after all...
-sam
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, (continued)
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Evan Prodromou, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Neil Jerram, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Keith Wright, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Sam Tregar, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Sam Tregar, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Jeff Read, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?,
Sam Tregar <=
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Ken Fox, 2001/05/11
- Message not available
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Jeff Read, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Jürgen A. Erhard, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/12
- more on continuations, Bill Schottstaedt, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/13
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/14