[Chicken-users] Re: News from the Barnyard

[Martin Gasbichler]

Felix Winkelmann <address@hidden> writes:

> Martin Gasbichler wrote:


>> Did you consider porting one of the existing
>> web servers to chicken? The same applies to your FTP and POP3
>> libraries. Both SUnet and PLT come with a huge bunch of networking
>> libraries: why is it more attractive to start from scratch instead of
>> trying to port existing code and benefit from the work and design
>> choices already made?
>
> For several reasons. I don't code in pure R5RS Scheme, it's just
> too painful. Furthermore the porting effort appears higher to me
> than implementing it from scratch. Also, the design decisions
> made by others shouldn't be taken for granted, they might not
> fit everyone's needs. The Chicken server (which hasn't even
> been released, yet!) is based on a small, relatively easy to
> use HTTP library, which is (naturally) highly implementation
> dependent. The server itself is quite minimalistic, and doesn't
> even try to be a replacement for, say, SUnet. So it's just
> a simple wrapper program for the HTTP stuff, which is fine
> for specialized needs. And who knows, I might even try to
> extend it further, what's the problem with that? I believe
> in diversity.

There is no problem with that, I just asked a question and you
answered it.

> See, I don't really understand this whole discussion. There are
> numerous SMTP, POP3, FTP, HTTP and whatever libraries out there,
> for different implementations. Why is it that a bunch of (unreleased)
> libraries for Chicken generates such an uproar? (forgive the slight
> exaggeration).
>
> Perhaps I should add that I'm not particularly interested in doing
> any service to the "Scheme community" as such. What I need (and what I
> would like to make available for others) is completely created for,
> and optimized towards, Chicken. Period.

You're right, this discussion is probably pointless, we have just
different points of view.


-- 
Martin