[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?
From: |
David MENTRE |
Subject: |
Re: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme? |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:39:33 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
Hello,
While looking at getting rid of Scheme, why not substitute it with
Objective Caml? I do not want to start a langage war and I'm pretty sure
that a lisp-like language is mandatory for Joris[1] but I personally
like OCaml and I consider it a very good scripting language (if not
programming language).
BTW, would it be conceivable to have multiple extension languages for
TeXmacs?
For the sake of completeness:
Joris van der Hoeven <address@hidden> writes:
> 1) Is the license GPL compatible?
I think so. Standard library is under LGPL. Compiler is QPL-like. I
think runtime is under LGPL.
> 2) How fast is the implementation (benchmarks ^^^)?
For compiled code (native code is OCaml parlance), between 0.9 and 1.5
times C speed. Slower for byte code (but not that slow).
As an indicator, OCaml is 2nd behind C in Bagley's Shootout
(http://www.bagley.org/~doug/shootout/craps.shtml) and 8th in byte code
(BTW, bigloo, scheme compiler, is 7th; cmucl is 6th and gnu gcl should
be faster than cmucl).
> 3) How portable is the implementation (Unix, Windows, etc.)?
Very portable. Unix (both free and proprietary ones), Windows, MacOS X,
on various processors (from ARM to IA64 and AMD64).
http://caml.inria.fr/ocaml/portability.html
> 4) Is it possible to use Scheme as an extension language?
Yes. Byte-code runtime can be easily used as an extension language. It
might be more difficult for native code.
> 5) Does the implementation have a clean module system?
Yes.
> 6) Do the SFRI extensions work?
You mean executing C code from the OCaml environment? If so, yes.
> 7) Is there a CLOS-like system available?
Yes, an object-like system is available (although without mixins, but
that is currently worked out in a PhD).
Yours,
d.
[1] I would be very interested to know why however.
--
David Mentré <address@hidden>
- [Texmacs-dev] Re: Getting rid of Scheme?, (continued)
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?, Joris van der Hoeven, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?, skhilji, 2004/04/16
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?, Nix, 2004/04/16
- RE: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?, Bill Page, 2004/04/16
- RE: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?, Boris Tschirschwitz, 2004/04/16
- RE: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?, Joris van der Hoeven, 2004/04/17
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?, Gilles LAMIRAL, 2004/04/18
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?, Joris van der Hoeven, 2004/04/19
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?,
David MENTRE <=
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?, David MENTRE, 2004/04/20
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?, Gilles LAMIRAL, 2004/04/20
- Re: [Texmacs-dev] Getting rid of Scheme?, Álvaro Tejero Cantero, 2004/04/20