Re: [Chicken-users] Porting modules to Chicken from other Schemes?

[Peter Bex]

On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 02:09:22PM +0900, Ivan Raikov wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
>    It depends on whether the module uses features specific to the other
> Scheme implementation. I find that the biggest impediments to porting to
> Chicken are non-hygienic macros, object oriented systems (often
> implemented as non-hygienic macros :-), and elaborate FFI constructs,
> which unfortunately vary widely between implementations.

I agree with what Ivan said.  Aside from looking at other Schemes and
OCaml, I personally have started to look at Common Lisp more closely.
Common Lisp programs are also often easy to port; it's a familiar
language with many idioms that map easily to Scheme, and low-level
defmacro macros are straightforward to port to ER or IR macros.
The library functions are straightforward to port, and often it's easy
to find similar functions.

Even if you don't translate programs directly from CL, some good ideas
can be stolen from CL libraries, since it's so similar ;)

The same could probably be true for Clojure.  Although the language
itself is syntax-heavy and not really *that* Lispy, there appear to be
some decent libraries there which are written in the Lisp spirit.

If you would like help porting something interesting, I'd be willing to
help out as well.  If you have questions, just drop by in #chicken on
freenode; people are generally friendly and helpful.
(I think I saw you join yesterday but it was at a time when most of us
are offline; it was at 6 in the morning in Europe :P )

Cheers,
Peter
-- 
http://sjamaan.ath.cx
--
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
 is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
 and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
 experience much like composing poetry or music."
                                                        -- Donald Knuth