[gambit-list] Libraries for day-to-day projects ?

Eric Parent eric at eparent.info
Wed Jul 9 13:22:40 EDT 2014

Many thanks to you all, (Mikel, Alvaro, Marc and Dirk, for all the comments
and explanations. That's really interesting to me.
I'll probably attend the ILC at Université de Montréal in August and will
surely attend the presentation on SchemeSphere if I'm there.

I'll go through the guided tour of "Chicken Republic" and get familiar with
its egg system until then.



2014-07-09 12:39 GMT-04:00 mikel evins <mevins at me.com>:

> On Jul 9, 2014, at 11:23 AM, Eric Parent <eric at eparent.info> wrote:
> > Any particular reason why you prefer Gambit over Chicken ?
> > Performance ? More standard compliant ?
> It might be hard to answer that question. I've used both of them for many
> years. I like them both a lot.
> I might use Gambit more often because a few years ago I was writing some
> apps on iOS and OS X and found it easier to make Gambit work with iOS than
> to make Chicken work with it. Once I started building some apps using
> Gambit, it became a sort of self-reinforcing proposition, since I soon knew
> more about how to make Gambit do what I wanted than about how to make
> Chicken do it. That may be all there is to it.
> I still always consider Chicken, and sometimes I choose it--particularly
> if I want to do something relatively small and Chicken has good libraries
> to support it.
> In general, there are more likely to be supporting libraries for a given
> task in Chicken, simply because its library ecosystem is huge. It's a good
> implementation and I'm never sorry to use it.
> But I also really like Gambit, and I've learned my way around it well
> enough to make it an attractive choice in a lot of cases. For one thing, I
> hacked its innards a few times successfully to make it do new things, and
> that makes me confident I can do it again.
> Its chief disadvantage is that it doesn't have Chicken's vast cornucopia
> of libraries.
> I think Gambit usually comes out ahead in benchmarks, but not so far ahead
> that it should make a difference in choosing between them in  most cases;
> both of them are good compilers that generate good code for a variety of
> interesting platforms.
> On the other hand, if there were a Scheme that compiled to native code--or
> even efficient bytecode--in RAM, that supported saving and loading images,
> that worked on at least OS X, Linux, and Windows, and that  had a foreign
> function interface capable of dynamic linking to foreign libraries without
> wrapping them in Scheme-specific glue code, I'd probably switch to that in
> an instant. WIll Clinger's MacScheme had all those features except platform
> portability, and I miss it. Heck, it even knew how to compile different
> functions to bytecode or native code and run both kinds of functions from
> the same runtime.
> Environments like that are getting harder to come by lately.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.iro.umontreal.ca/pipermail/gambit-list/attachments/20140709/c1c09147/attachment.htm>

More information about the Gambit-list mailing list