Re: language translator help

[John W. Eaton]

On 28-Apr-2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG <address@hidden> wrote:

| "John W. Eaton" <address@hidden> writes:
| 
| > Sure.  But this doesn't really answer my question.  If the wrapper for
| > the library and the library itself are written in C, then that is
| > something that must be compiled before it can be used with Guile, and
| > may need to be ported if it contains platform-dependent bits.  So if
| > you already have that dependency on compiled C code, why is it
| > important that the parser/translator be written in Scheme instead of
| > C?
| 
| Right, but then I'd put that library as part of the standard Gnome
| set.  In other words, extend Gnome first, then provide the
| conventional interface from Python.

I assume you meant Guile, not Gnome.

What if the run-time library for the translator isn't something that
belongs as part of standard Guile?  Where is the benefit then?  And if
the run-time library for the translator does belong in the standard
Guile, why wouldn't the parser also belong there?

The point is that if a language translator extension for Guile already
requires significant bits of possibly platform-dependent C code, I
don't think it matters whether the parser is written in Scheme, C, or
some other compiled language.  The complete translator still requires
compiled C code to implement, so I don't see a reason that using
Scheme instead of C is necessarily better (other than "Scheme is cool,
use Scheme!").

jwe