[gambit-list] New types
david rush
kumoyuki at gmail.com
Sun Feb 13 22:54:59 EST 2005
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 20:58:02 -0600, Eduardo Cavazos
<wayo.cavazos at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is the reason that I'd like to stick with the procedural
> representation instead of using Gambit structures directly.
...
> ;; In an object system like the one I made it's much shorter:
Well, I used to think that way too. Believe me, you're on well-trodden
ground here.
Anyway I switched to heavy use of functors because I got tired of having lots of
(let ((accessor (object accessor-keyword))) ..)
code and because functors have a much more flexible pattern of reuse.
This has had the added advantage of allowing me to re-use native
implementations of structures as in Gambit. In some Schemes (most
notably Stalin, but this also applies to PLT), using native structures
can result in significant speed-ups to your code. I am not sure if
that is true in Gambit-4 or not.
david rush
--
DIsruptive Technology!
More information about the Gambit-list
mailing list