[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken benchmarks

From: Felix
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] Chicken benchmarks
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 16:09:53 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020530

Perry E. Metzger wrote:
Felix <address@hidden> writes:

But note that it doesn't really make sense to compare
Bigloo (or Scheme->C or Stalin, for that matter) with Chicken,
Gambit or other compilers that can handle full tail-call
optimization and first class continuations. Providing support for
these constructs means an implementer has to pay a certain price
for *all* code (except when you can generate pure native code,
where you have a little bit more flexibility).

Actually it doesn't. It is only a price to be paid if you are going to
compile into C which doesn't support tail calls.

Perhaps if we were to produce a scheme front end for gcc or something
similar the problem would go away...

You are not the first who had this idea. The GCC source-code is
definitely too big and complex for me, but I don't know about others.
Moreover just maintaining something like that, keeping in pace
with the normal GCC development seems to be a rather exhausting
thing to do. Then there are installation and configuration
steps to be done (not that this is any easier with Chicken... ;-)
I think it is probably more rewarding is a decent, free
R5RS compiler targeting x86 machine code, with an open design
that can incorporate experimental extensions easily.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]