Subject: Re: Emacs in CL
From: (Rob Warnock)
Date: 12 Mar 2001 11:02:13 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme
Message-ID: <98iabl$3ct1e$>
[Following up to comp.lang.scheme *only*, since I strongly doubt many
people in c.l.l. care about obsolete Schemes.]

David Bakhash  <> wrote:
| I dislike Guile partly because of how slow it is, but mostly because
| of how inconsistent I found the libraries to be (at least when I
| loaded up SND).  I couldn't stand trying to find all of the basic
| things I'd need to load up just to do simple stuff.
| Sorry I can't be more precise.  It's been a while.  I don't have much
| to compare it to, as the only other Scheme systems I've used are SIOD
| (in Festival -- pretty bad) and MIT Scheme, going way back.

Try MzScheme <URL:>,
the engine underneath MrEd and DrScheme <URL:
packages/drscheme/>. I suspect you'll find it much more to your liking.

Take some time to study the object system and the "units with signatures"
module system <URL:
node54.htm>. On the one hand, they do have some limits compared to CLOS &
CL-style packages; on the other hand the notions of "units" or even just
multiple global namespaces <URL:
doc/mzscheme/node91.htm> show that "experimentation" [a subtopic of this
long "Scheme vs. CL" thread] *can* take you well *beyond* CL, in some

| BTW, anyone here ever tinker with the Scheme that's in Gimp?  How does 
| that one compare?

It's basically SIOD (which you say above you've used), the syntax of
which is based on the now-obsolete R3RS plus numerous idiosyncratic
extensions. Not that SIOD's all that bad, say, for light-weight scripting.
But it's not anything I'd build a major application on (like The Gimp).
For that I'd use PLT Scheme, for sure.


Rob Warnock, 31-2-510
SGI Network Engineering		<URL:>
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy.		Phone: 650-933-1673
Mountain View, CA  94043	PP-ASEL-IA