Pseudo Scheme: Scheme Implemented on Top of Common Lisp
1–10 of 19 posts
Re: Pseudo Scheme: Scheme Implemented on Top of Common Lisp
#2I feel like one of the major benefits of using Scheme is how easy it is to interoperate with just about any environment. Want to embed Scheme in your C application? Take your pick from GNU Guile, Chibi, Gambit, or Chicken. How about the JVM? Kawa is solid, option. .NET? IronScheme has got you covered. Javascript? There is LIPS or BiwaScheme.
Re: Pseudo Scheme: Scheme Implemented on Top of Common Lisp
#3I feel like one of the major benefits of using Scheme is how easy it is to interoperate with just about any environment. Want to embed Scheme in your C application? Take your pick from GNU Guile, Chibi, Gambit, or Chicken. How about the JVM? Kawa is solid, option. .NET? IronScheme has got you covered. Javascript? There is LIPS or BiwaScheme.
I agree. I recently started using an R4RS Scheme called "STk", the precursor to STklos, which I modded into a build system (replacing Make and Sh, for the most part) and a graphics DSL front-end to C. The author wrote a demo app web browser with Scheme as a scripting language, as was the original plan with Mozilla, and Tk as the GUI. Writing extensions in C is a breeze too, as it supports dynamic loading:
https://github.com/egallesio/STk
I like Common Lisp too, although not as much as Scheme day-to-day--it is nice now to have both. I was thinking about adding a TinyCLOS using Common Lisp. Pseudo Scheme transpiles source to CL, so I might be able to do it with CLOS underlying it instead of how TinyCLOS does it.
Jonathan Rees, the original author, has a Pseudo Scheme repo up on Github, with a branch that uses ASDF (which I am testing with SBCL).
https://github.com/jar398/pseudoscheme
Thanks for your comment, and thanks to the maintainers of both of the linked Scheme implementations.
Re: Pseudo Scheme: Scheme Implemented on Top of Common Lisp
#4I've sometimes done the opposite - when working in scheme/racket, searched for implementations of things like loop, defmacro or tagbody. (They have their quirks, but when they're a good fit for a problem they can save a lot of typing.)
Re: Pseudo Scheme: Scheme Implemented on Top of Common Lisp
#5I feel like one of the major benefits of using Scheme is how easy it is to interoperate with just about any environment. Want to embed Scheme in your C application? Take your pick from GNU Guile, Chibi, Gambit, or Chicken. How about the JVM? Kawa is solid, option. .NET? IronScheme has got you covered. Javascript? There is LIPS or BiwaScheme.
I agree. I recently started using an R4RS Scheme called "STk", the precursor to STklos, which I modded into a build system (replacing Make and Sh, for the most part) and a graphics DSL front-end to C. The author wrote a demo app web browser with Scheme as a scripting language, as was the original plan with Mozilla, and Tk as the GUI. Writing extensions in C is a breeze too, as it supports dynamic loading: https://git…
> Pseudoscheme consists primarily of a Scheme to Common Lisp translator that is written in Scheme. To obtain a version of the translator that runs in Common Lisp, it is applied to itself.
Yes!
Re: Pseudo Scheme: Scheme Implemented on Top of Common Lisp
#6Like almost always, there are chapters about that in PAIP:
22 Scheme: An Uncommon Lisp[what a pun!] https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp/blob/main/docs/chapter22...
23 Compiling Lisp [Scheme] https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp/blob/main/docs/chapter23...
Re: Pseudo Scheme: Scheme Implemented on Top of Common Lisp
#7I'm curious how it handles call/cc. I at least think you would have to make your own continuation stack, unless there's some way to get at the internals of unwind-protect that would make doing it natively possible.
Re: Pseudo Scheme: Scheme Implemented on Top of Common Lisp
#8I've sometimes done the opposite - when working in scheme/racket, searched for implementations of things like loop, defmacro or tagbody. (They have their quirks, but when they're a good fit for a problem they can save a lot of typing.)
Defmacro is trivial to implement in syntax-case, but you are in for a world of pain if you want to use bindings across modules.
In have an implementation of tagbody for guile scheme somewhere, using delimited continuations. I have seen it for racket as well. There is an implementation of loop for racket, but it relies heavily on set! which will tank performance, since chez and racket (and many schemes) is pretty bad at not boxing mutable values.
I wrote this which is definitely not as powerful as loop, but definitely more powerful than rackets for loops: https://git.sr.ht/~bjoli/goof-loop
Re: Pseudo Scheme: Scheme Implemented on Top of Common Lisp
#9I've sometimes done the opposite - when working in scheme/racket, searched for implementations of things like loop, defmacro or tagbody. (They have their quirks, but when they're a good fit for a problem they can save a lot of typing.)
Chicken has a Common Lisp style `loop` egg: https://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/5/loop I think it's based on a more generic Scheme version but I don't have a link to the original.
SLIB has an implementation of pretty much the entirety of CL's `format` that I ported to Racket: https://docs.racket-lang.org/slib-format/index.html
I also implemented a bunch of other CL stuff for Racket in https://docs.racket-lang.org/soup-lib/index.html (but not `tagbody`. Yet.)
Re: Pseudo Scheme: Scheme Implemented on Top of Common Lisp
#10I've sometimes done the opposite - when working in scheme/racket, searched for implementations of things like loop, defmacro or tagbody. (They have their quirks, but when they're a good fit for a problem they can save a lot of typing.)
Defmacro is trivial to implement in syntax-case, but you are in for a world of pain if you want to use bindings across modules. In have an implementation of tagbody for guile scheme somewhere, using delimited continuations. I have seen it for racket as well. There is an implementation of loop for racket, but it relies heavily on set! which will tank performance, since chez and racket (and many schemes) is pretty bad…
Defmacro isn't hygienic, while syntax- is.
Is there way to use arbitrary names in hygienic syntax- macros?