The page you gave about quack didn't mention debugging, and gambit.el has very minimal support, as far as I can tell. My point is that these are not acceptable solutions, yet the fact that people think they count as a solution seems to prevent the creation of real solutions. Telling me that "I can create my own" is also not very helpful. I think that a language implementation is not complete without a good out-of-the-box development environment, which includes a good debugger. I stand by my assertion that there are no complete implementations of Scheme. And this is very unfortunate. I also admit being annoyed by this situation, but I'm not just complaining; I am trying to do something about it.
William
Alex Sandro Queiroz e Silva wrote:
Hallo,
William Cook wrote:
Yes, as i said in my email, I know that Emacs can do anything.
If fancy means taking advantage of ubiquitous bit-mapped displays, then I guess I do mean fancy.
So we can agree that Emacs is fancy too.Neither of your links mention Scheme, as far as I can tell. And searching for Schema and GDB didn't bring up much of use either. Is there a connection between Emacs debugging and Gambit Scheme? If so, I'd like to know about it, because some of my students would like to use it.
Those are screenshots of the GDB mode, which I think is prettyneat. For Scheme one can use gambit.el (that comes with Gambit-C) or quack.el[1]. They may be not as fancy or beautiful as the GDB mode (or Eclipse), buy they do work. Besides, one can add as much fanciness as he wants.
[1] - http://www.neilvandyke.org/quack/
Cheers, -alex http://www.ventonegro.org/