Comments on: Switching scheme implementations http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/switching-scheme-implementations/ Leveraging Perl and Emacs Tue, 07 May 2013 11:25:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: IanO http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/switching-scheme-implementations/#comment-34 Sun, 03 Dec 2006 12:27:43 +0000 http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/switching-scheme-implementations/#comment-34 Hi Rick,

The past few weeks I’ve been somewhat sidetracked working through HTDP rather than doing real work with mzscheme and I think that either chicken or mzscheme would work equally well here. However, for the few small scripts I have written, mzscheme has been the better choice. At least it solves the three problems I listed in the previous post.

I’m using quack to interface emacs with scheme and although I’ve not used most of its features, it works well enough for me.

Ian

]]> By: Jay Kint http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/switching-scheme-implementations/#comment-33 Fri, 01 Dec 2006 21:28:02 +0000 http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/switching-scheme-implementations/#comment-33 The same problem exists for other dynamic languages with multiple implementations. Switch from CPython to Jython or IronPython and you’ll find libraries that aren’t portable or extensions that don’t exist in other implementations. That’s the nature of the beast.

Having used PLT for a few weeks now, I think it could be considered the de facto implementation for Scheme. It’s actually useful for real world problems, not just teaching programming languages.

Now I just wish for something comparable to SLIME for the Scheme world.

]]> By: Rick Hanson http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/switching-scheme-implementations/#comment-31 Fri, 01 Dec 2006 12:49:19 +0000 http://curiousprogrammer.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/switching-scheme-implementations/#comment-31 Now that it’s been a couple of months since you switched, I’m curious how you like mzscheme — I’m thinking about making the switch too. Also, what Emacs Lisp lib are you using to talk to your inferior scheme? Thanks! –Rick

]]>