41–50 of 80 posts
Why do people keep thinking they can use a garbage-collected language for “systems programming”?
>Why do people keep thinking they can use a garbage-collected language for “systems programming”? Why do you think it can't be done? It was already used for systems-programming in the early 80s; whole machines were programmed in Lisp in low level: TI Explorer, Xerox workstations and others.
(Mostly just hoisting Noel Welsh's comment to the top level) How will the expected upcoming move of Racket to the use of Chez affect the comparison between Gerbil and Racket? I'm trying not to set my expectations too high. BTW: RacketCon! This weekend!
I am super excited for Chez. If we see the speed we are look at a possible doubling in speed. There is certainly a reason why he has stuck with Gambit and not my beloved Racket. This seems perfect for using Racket's macros. I just don't know Gambit's Macros well enough to compare them to Racket. Here is the Bench Marks for Chez, Racket and Gambit https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why do people keep thinking they can use a garbage-collected language for “systems programming”? Why do you think it can't be done? It was already used for systems-programming in the early 80s; whole machines were programmed in Lisp in low level: TI Explorer, Xerox workstations and others.
I distinctly remember waiting quite a long while with my Symbolics locked up while it completed a GC.
"Bad response time doesn't bother the Real Programmer -- it gives him a chance to catch a little sleep between compiles. "
-- from "Real Programmers Don't use Pascal"
Already a handful of "how does this compare...?" postings but the standard for a systems-programming scheme is scsh, a find abstraction layer over POSIX dating from the nineties. https://scsh.net/
Why do people keep thinking they can use a garbage-collected language for “systems programming”?
https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ recent addition to the charts, and is doing quite well.
Sadly Stalin is unmaintained. Its whole program optimization techniques were really advanced. I remember it even got my ivory-tower professors, who were big in the static analysis field, excited.
Now, a tricky question. I'm mostly unfamiliar with Scheme for writing real-world code. Will the ongoing merger of Chez with Racket make the latter a clear winner in the Scheme camp? How are libraries and FFI?
A problem with Scheme is excessive fragmentation. Having a clear winner would be cool for library support. Racket is great due to multiple paradigms and DSLs [1]. I hope it eventually becomes a very practical Lisp with all Mozart/Oz semantic goodies.
I am trying to do all my projects in a Lisp. Lately this is either Clojure or SBCL. Both have good libraries and decent FFIs. Clasp (Common Lisp on LLVM) [2] has gotten me excited, as good interfacing with C++ will be great to access a lot of quick numerics code.
[1] https://beautifulracket.com/appendix/domain-specific-languag...
https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ recent addition to the charts, and is doing quite well.
Yes, Chez & Stalin are the fastest in these benchmarks, which seems to match what the community usually answers when asked about quick implementations. Sadly Stalin is unmaintained. Its whole program optimization techniques were really advanced. I remember it even got my ivory-tower professors, who were big in the static analysis field, excited. Now, a tricky question. I'm mostly unfamiliar with Scheme for writing re…
https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ recent addition to the charts, and is doing quite well.
Yes, Chez & Stalin are the fastest in these benchmarks, which seems to match what the community usually answers when asked about quick implementations. Sadly Stalin is unmaintained. Its whole program optimization techniques were really advanced. I remember it even got my ivory-tower professors, who were big in the static analysis field, excited. Now, a tricky question. I'm mostly unfamiliar with Scheme for writing re…
Yes. And not only that, but also the fact that each Scheme implementation is slightly (at best) different from all other implementations. I guess that is because Scheme standards are not that strict (for example, compare with Java specs)
(Mostly just hoisting Noel Welsh's comment to the top level) How will the expected upcoming move of Racket to the use of Chez affect the comparison between Gerbil and Racket? I'm trying not to set my expectations too high. BTW: RacketCon! This weekend!
https://github.com/racket/racket7
Is this like research work like Pycket (Racket on PyPy) or is this a blessed project and Rackets official implementation will cut over
(Mostly just hoisting Noel Welsh's comment to the top level) How will the expected upcoming move of Racket to the use of Chez affect the comparison between Gerbil and Racket? I'm trying not to set my expectations too high. BTW: RacketCon! This weekend!
No way!!! Holy crap balls will this get interesting. To be clear, is this what mflatt's racket7 repo is all about!? This is what I found from quick Googling. https://github.com/racket/racket7 Is this like research work like Pycket (Racket on PyPy) or is this a blessed project and Rackets official implementation will cut over
> TL;DR: I expect the main Racket distribution to run on Chez Scheme instead of the current Racket VM sometime in the next couple of years.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/racket-dev/2BV3ElyfF8Y/4RSd3...