[gambit-list] Reflection on the suitability of keeping the Scheme implementation (i.e. Gambit) and the module system split in two completely separate codebases/projects

Benjohn Barnes benjohn at fysh.org
Mon Jun 13 14:02:51 EDT 2011

On 9 Jun 2011, at 02:38, Mikael wrote:

> In relation with the conversation below on the use of Black Hole, here's a reflection on Gambit w Black Hole:
> That the Scheme environment (i.e. Gambit) and the module system (i.e. Black Hole) are completely separate, appears to be a good abstraction to me.

I largely agree, but I'll wade in with my thoughts so far…

• Per hinted that a module system needs to be able to monkey about with the implementation at a reasonably deep level. Perhaps an interface can be provided for this though, and this could then be used for other module systems (and perhaps other facilities too).

• I strongly feel that languages "do well" when they come with batteries included. The particular metric of do well I'm thinking of is getting widely adopted and used by loving developers. While being able to use other module systems or support an extensible module system would be lovely, I think Gambit should instal with a module system "out of the box" as soon as possible. Once that is achieved, the system can be refined further.


benjohn at fysh.org - Twitter @benjohnbarnes - Skype benjohnbarnes - Mobile +44 (0) 7968 851 636

More information about the Gambit-list mailing list