Hallo, On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Hendrik Boom <hendrik@topoi.pooq.com> wrote:

Now I suspect this is more serious than the usual expired certificate. Perhaps a misconfiguration on the site?

It works for me from Switzerland. -- -alex http://www.artisancoder.com/

...

https://github.com/jlongster/swank-gambit https://github.com/shortsightedsid/swank-gambit

for the sake of completeness, this is the network of the github repos: https://github.com/jlongster/swank-gambit/network and this one seems to hold the latest commit: https://github.com/pablomarx/swank-gambit/commits/master

It seems Scheid's repo is the latest code.  But when I tried it with the latest slime I got an error concerning an unsupported coding system.  I looked at the code and it is due to a change in the protocol, so I fixed it up so that at least it gives a prompt after a M-x slime-connect .  The code is attached to this message.

i couldn't stop yesterday, and used it as a first scheme hacking session opportunity to fix it myself... looks like i joined wasting effort on scheme swank. how will i be able to complain about it now...? :) my plan is to first coordinate the swank effort, because swank-chicken seems to be more functional and also kept updated. my plan for now is to set up a swank-scheme repo that brings these efforts together (official slime has some r6rs code, swank-gambit, and swank-chicken at least, maybe others not on my radar yet). so, my first question: what's the situation with r6rs? my impression is that the scheme crowd is not too keen on jumping the bandwagon... is the situation something like this: having a portable swank-scheme *based* on r6rs is a good thing to pursue on the long term (with backend specific extensions ala official slime on various CL's), but I should expect bugs and headaches along the way due to r6rs immaturities of various scheme VM's? if the above holds, then i'd go that way and hunt down and/or workaround the bugs i meet along the way. --  attila Notice the erosion of your (digital) freedom, and do something about it! PGP: 2FA1 A9DC 9C1E BA25 A59C  963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 OTR XMPP: 8647EEAC EA30FEEF E1B55146 573E52EE 21B1FF06

Hi Attila, 2011/12/7 Attila Lendvai <attila.lendvai@gmail.com>

so, my first question: what's the situation with r6rs? my impression is that the scheme crowd is not too keen on jumping the bandwagon...

Indeed. Go with R5RS and check out R7RS more as it progresses. You have the R7RS core spec out there already, ought be all you need. R5RS and R7RS core code are compliant with each other, save for some easy to implement yourself procedures and forms introduced by the latter. The procedures R7RS core adds to R5RS, is things most R5RS impls have already; now they're just taken into the standard.

is the situation something like this: having a portable swank-scheme

*based* on r6rs is a good thing to pursue on the long term (with

backend specific extensions ala official slime on various CL's), but I should expect bugs and headaches along the way due to r6rs immaturities of various scheme VM's?

R7RS is the long term thing as it stands, and you already have a mature draft of the core spec out for it. Afaik the great majority of Scheme implementations today are R5RS. For an implementation-portable app you'd need to sit down and look at exactly what language and runtime functionality you need, and then keep your code to use exactly that only. I'd advise you to do this originating from the R5RS spec. Availability of unicode/char encoding, binary data handling and theading, numeric tower, and how to do networking and run external OS processes would be examples of differences in the runtime, availability of namespaces, DSSSL and what macro facilities there are would be examples of things that differ language-wise. In case you really want to squeeze your code into just about any environment out there, you might want to make your own code preprocessor (that processes away macro-specific things i.e. macro expansion and any kind of cond-expands or alike you have to produce different code for different impls, and code handling specific things i.e. includes) that produces code runnable for respective Scheme impls.

if the above holds, then i'd go that way and hunt down and/or workaround the bugs i meet along the way.

-- attila

Mikael

Alternatively (but harder I think), abstract the operations you need from the Scheme system, and have the common swank code call into the system specific implementation of the interface.

i don't think it would be harder. this is how the official slime codebase is organized, and there are major chunks of code that are shared (e.g. the entire inspector). and this kind of separation (common stuff + one file for each CL backend) is also easier to understand than a code full of cond-expand (IMHO). it's also beneficial to mimic the official organization to make it easier to follow its future changes. i asked the maintainer of swank-chicken (Nick Gasson) what he thinks about this, but no answer yet. swank-chicken is the most alive and maintained on my radar. --  attila Notice the erosion of your (digital) freedom, and do something about it! PGP: 2FA1 A9DC 9C1E BA25 A59C  963F 5D5F 45C7 DFCD 0A39 OTR XMPP: 8647EEAC EA30FEEF E1B55146 573E52EE 21B1FF06

Hello Attila. I was wondering how your swank for Gambit project was coming along. I remember that you were interested in running Scheme on an embedded device. Have you considered the picobit compiler and VM I wrote? I have used it quite successfully for real-time control of a custom robot (picture below) which has a PIC microcontroller and a few KB of RAM. Finally, talking about embedded devices, I've recently come across a cheap ($40) and super compact wifi module which contains 2 embedded ARM processors and a few hundred kilobytes of RAM. It sounds like the perfect embedded platform for wireless sensors, tiny robots, etc (here's a link: http://www.semiconductorstore.com/cart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=47055). I'm thinking of installing picobit on one. Marc

On 2012-01-19, at 10:48 PM, Attila Lendvai wrote:

hallo Marc,

...

Hello Attila. I was wondering how your swank for Gambit project was coming along.

it's stalled while i'm further exploring the possibilities.

when i was asking around compiler authors about having a single swank-scheme project with backend-specific code in separate files, i've found little enthusiasm. and as i'm not sure how deep/long i will delve into scheme, i don't want to start yet another project that will end up being abandoned and merely be noise in the scheme universe…

That sounds familiar.

as of my embedded device: in fact it's not that much embedded... it has 32MB ram and the OS on it is a linux distribution, so picobit is probably not what i need.

so far i've played with gambit, chicken, and chibi-scheme, and for now i'm further experimenting with chibi, which compiles out of the box on my target environment (cygwin based gcc cross compiler, bleh! they run linux and the SDK is windows+cygwin based... "for the convenience of the programmer")

Gambit also builds on cygwin "out of the box".

basically what i need: - little headache porting the scheme VM to the device (i must admit, the gambit build infrastructure was a bit intimidating regarding this)

If the configure script and makefiles are not working for you in your environment, you could simply call the C compiler on all the .c files. An example of this is in misc/vcexpress.bat (that's for Visual C++ Express, but just use it as a template to call the C compiler in your SDK).

- modular compilation, because e.g. there's no floating point on the device

What do you mean by "modular compilation"? This might be a problem because Gambit represents time information (such as timeouts) using floating point numbers. Isn't there a floating point software emulation of some sort?

- a http client

Do you mean client, or server? A server is in examples/web-server. A client is easy to write (for example see examples/iOS/wiki.scm) or the one I wrote for Snow (http://snow.iro.umontreal.ca/?viewpkg=http).

- preferably bytecode support (but text representation is also ok), that i can http get to the device and eval (the actual program)

Gambit does not use bytecode. But it can serialize interpreted closures, which makes them easy to send over the net.

what is secondary: - speed - fancy features (the most complex stuff i need is an http client)

my plan for now is to compile the scheme VM and a smaller loader/bootstrap code that can download, signature check and eval scheme bytecode/text, which will be the program implementing the actual business logic.

Sounds neat!

...

Finally, talking about embedded devices, I've recently come across a cheap ($40) and super compact wifi module which contains 2 embedded ARM processors and a few hundred kilobytes of RAM. It sounds like the perfect embedded platform for wireless sensors, tiny robots, etc (here's a link: http://www.semiconductorstore.com/cart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=47055). I'm thinking of installing picobit on one.

sounds like fun! :)

i'm keeping an eye on http://www.raspberrypi.org/ and will most probably order one when it comes out...

as of swank-gambit: i'm not sure when i will get back to it, so i've attached my version of swank-gambit.scm that i've done parallel with you. it may have something useful, e.g. a basic code to load slime modules similar to how the CL swank does it.

Thanks! I'll have a look. Can I suggest you put it up on Gambit's Dumping Grounds? (http://dynamo.iro.umontreal.ca/~gambit/wiki/index.php/Dumping_Grounds) Marc

On 2012-02-13, at 8:25 AM, Attila Lendvai wrote:

...

If the configure script and makefiles are not working for you in your environment, you could simply call the C compiler on all the .c files. An example of this is in misc/vcexpress.bat (that's for Visual C++ Express, but just use it as a template to call the C compiler in your SDK).

thanks, that's good to know!

...

...

- modular compilation, because e.g. there's no floating point on the device

What do you mean by "modular compilation"? This might be a problem because Gambit represents time information (such as timeouts) using floating point numbers. Isn't there a floating point software emulation of some sort?

not a properly setup one for sure. they only give me years old gcc versions compiled for cygwin... argh!

to be honest, i'm amazed by the incompetency of the support they have. how do they want to sell their devices??? e.g. i need to send 5 mails to get all the tools needed to compile and flash the example app. then they send me out of sync stuff, doc newer then the API libs and incompatible, etc...

...

...

my plan for now is to compile the scheme VM and a smaller loader/bootstrap code that can download, signature check and eval scheme bytecode/text, which will be the program implementing the actual business logic.

Sounds neat!

it may sound neat, but it's a much more rough road than what i expected...

for now i've managed to compile chibi for the better vega5000 device, write some bootstrap code in C that reads and executes a main.scm file that prints hello world.

but the edit/compile/run turnaround circle is still some 5 mins with everything possible automated. and that's unbearable for my mind spoiled using CL and slime... :)

Do you need to compile at every iteration of the development cycle, or can you use an interpreter? With Gambit I typically compile the files which implement the FFI, and then I use the interpreter to develop the main application.

if i can reach a point where the bootstrap code can download and run scheme from the net, and log stuff to the net which shows up on my laptop, then this will go down a lot lower, but seems like there's still a long way there.

i'm planning to try lua also, because it has a history of embedded device use, so maybe the roads that way are more cleared.

as of gambit, it's still on my radar, but the float issue is quite a bit of headache. i may try to ask for the gcc config/sources so that i can compile a properly configured one for myself on linux, but given the incompetency of the SDK itself, i have doubts about whether i should even ask for it..x.

Gambit used to work without the need for a floating point unit. Eventually Gambit started using floats to simplify some things (like fine granularity timeouts, and multiplication of large bignums using FFT). In general, there are few dependencies on floating point, so if you don't need these things, you can probably provide a floating point emulation layer that always returns 0.0 as a result for all operations and I'm 99% sure that Gambit will still "work". Marc