Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 09:33 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Vladimir Nikishkin (25 Apr 2021 09:46 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 09:57 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Amirouche Boubekki (25 Apr 2021 11:04 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 11:13 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Marc Feeley (25 Apr 2021 12:01 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 12:15 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Alex Shinn (26 Apr 2021 13:09 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Jakub T. Jankiewicz (26 Apr 2021 18:51 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Alex Shinn (27 Apr 2021 02:59 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Amirouche Boubekki (25 Apr 2021 10:47 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 10:57 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 11:03 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Adam Nelson (25 Apr 2021 21:00 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 21:10 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Amirouche Boubekki (25 Apr 2021 11:34 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 12:01 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (25 Apr 2021 12:23 UTC)
R6RS and portability Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 12:35 UTC)
Re: R6RS and portability Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (25 Apr 2021 14:18 UTC)
Re: R6RS and portability Marc Feeley (25 Apr 2021 14:41 UTC)
Re: R6RS and portability Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (25 Apr 2021 14:55 UTC)
Scheme package management Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 15:03 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Marc Feeley (25 Apr 2021 15:08 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 15:14 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Alex Shinn (26 Apr 2021 08:14 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Lassi Kortela (26 Apr 2021 09:02 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Alex Shinn (26 Apr 2021 09:33 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Lassi Kortela (26 Apr 2021 09:41 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Jakub T. Jankiewicz (26 Apr 2021 12:01 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Lassi Kortela (26 Apr 2021 12:09 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Alex Shinn (26 Apr 2021 12:58 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Alex Shinn (26 Apr 2021 12:34 UTC)
Re: R6RS and portability Marc Feeley (25 Apr 2021 15:05 UTC)
Re: R6RS and portability Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (25 Apr 2021 15:14 UTC)
Scheme package management Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 15:22 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (25 Apr 2021 15:35 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 15:45 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (25 Apr 2021 15:51 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 16:27 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Marc Feeley (25 Apr 2021 15:47 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 15:54 UTC)
Scheme package management Marc Feeley (25 Apr 2021 15:28 UTC)
Re: Scheme package management Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (25 Apr 2021 15:41 UTC)
Re: R6RS and portability Jakub T. Jankiewicz (25 Apr 2021 15:55 UTC)
Re: R6RS and portability Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 16:15 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Adam Nelson (25 Apr 2021 20:56 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (25 Apr 2021 21:14 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Adam Nelson (25 Apr 2021 21:29 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 21:40 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (26 Apr 2021 06:05 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Marc Feeley (25 Apr 2021 21:07 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Adam Nelson (25 Apr 2021 21:34 UTC)
Building up R7RS in stages Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 21:45 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Marc Feeley (25 Apr 2021 21:59 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Amirouche Boubekki (26 Apr 2021 06:54 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (25 Apr 2021 11:36 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 11:47 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Adam Nelson (25 Apr 2021 20:11 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (25 Apr 2021 20:30 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster John Cowan (25 Apr 2021 23:04 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (25 Apr 2021 20:29 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (26 Apr 2021 02:45 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (26 Apr 2021 05:58 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (26 Apr 2021 06:45 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Amirouche Boubekki (26 Apr 2021 07:05 UTC)
Interaction between spec and code Lassi Kortela (26 Apr 2021 07:36 UTC)
Re: Interaction between spec and code Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (26 Apr 2021 07:59 UTC)
Re: Interaction between spec and code Lassi Kortela (26 Apr 2021 08:06 UTC)
Re: Interaction between spec and code Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (26 Apr 2021 08:16 UTC)
Re: Interaction between spec and code John Cowan (30 Apr 2021 14:39 UTC)
Re: Interaction between spec and code Lassi Kortela (30 Apr 2021 14:56 UTC)
Re: Interaction between spec and code John Cowan (01 May 2021 05:02 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster John Cowan (26 Apr 2021 00:28 UTC)
Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela (26 Apr 2021 06:15 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven John Cowan (01 May 2021 06:34 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (01 May 2021 07:02 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela (01 May 2021 08:14 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (01 May 2021 09:11 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela (01 May 2021 09:56 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (01 May 2021 10:29 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela (01 May 2021 11:01 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (01 May 2021 11:32 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela (01 May 2021 12:09 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (01 May 2021 12:49 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela (01 May 2021 13:34 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (01 May 2021 14:01 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela (01 May 2021 14:39 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Per Bothner (01 May 2021 15:37 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Amirouche Boubekki (01 May 2021 14:10 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela (01 May 2021 15:04 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Amirouche Boubekki (01 May 2021 16:43 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Adam Nelson (01 May 2021 17:35 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (01 May 2021 17:55 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven John Cowan (01 May 2021 18:31 UTC)
Re: Discussion with the creator of Lojban, and editor of R7RS-large Arthur A. Gleckler (02 May 2021 02:08 UTC)
Re: Discussion with the creator of Lojban, and editor of R7RS-large Arthur A. Gleckler (02 May 2021 04:16 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (02 May 2021 17:21 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven John Cowan (01 May 2021 18:12 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Arthur A. Gleckler (01 May 2021 18:21 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Feeley (01 May 2021 18:37 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven John Cowan (01 May 2021 20:18 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven John Cowan (01 May 2021 17:08 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela (01 May 2021 16:30 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Faré (03 May 2021 02:24 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela (03 May 2021 09:49 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Faré (03 May 2021 14:19 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela (03 May 2021 14:33 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven John Cowan (03 May 2021 14:41 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 May 2021 15:00 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven John Cowan (03 May 2021 19:46 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 May 2021 20:43 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven John Cowan (03 May 2021 23:49 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (04 May 2021 07:33 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven John Cowan (05 May 2021 18:33 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (05 May 2021 18:51 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven John Cowan (05 May 2021 20:12 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (05 May 2021 20:26 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Amirouche (05 May 2021 21:37 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Alex Shinn (05 May 2021 21:50 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (06 May 2021 13:18 UTC)
Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (03 May 2021 14:27 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (26 Apr 2021 08:09 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela (26 Apr 2021 08:15 UTC)
Re: Making SRFI go faster Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (26 Apr 2021 08:26 UTC)

Re: Making SRFI go faster Lassi Kortela 25 Apr 2021 12:01 UTC

> If I understand correctly, SRFI / RnRS libraries would be collectively
> owned by participants including maintainers of Scheme implementations
> that want to take part in the process? The alternative at the moment
> is to copy and tweak sample implementations or create an
> implementation from scratch.

Yes, exactly!

> As far as I know cond-expand is not trivial to implement. And even if
> it was, it will not completely eliminate the problem that some Scheme
> may want to use a completely different implementation that will force
> us to have cond-expand based on implementations.

IMHO cond-expand is one of Scheme's best features, and probably
impossible to eliminate for non-trivial programs which need to call out
to things like SQLite, compression libraries, etc.

> As far as I know there is no Scheme implementation that can run on a
> trivial subset of Scheme (that is maximally portable across Scheme
> implementations and Operating Systems), and that is easy to debug
> (breakpoints, step debugger, variable inspection, one step macro
> expansion). Including a garbage collector is too much work (I am
> clueless about the subject). Regarding things like threads, network or
> SRFI-170, it could be emulated (a portable C FFI can be a very useful
> addition :).

Good Scheme debuggers are very hard to do, as well as good error
messages; those almost research problems in their own right. The
implementations that have been around for 30 years probably have the
best debuggers currently.

An emulator is a somewhat different problem from writing libraries for
real work, though ideally those libraries would also run on the emulator.

> I agree. I still wonder whether being portable like the projects below
> is not more work than the alternative I describe above. One drawback
> of relying a lot on external implementations, is that if the
> maintainer goes, scheme-live will end-up with debt code or we will
> need to decide to drop support for that implementation, which is a
> difficult choice.

My main interest in a portable library collection would be that it's
useful for writing real programs. That means the code should run fast
and be able to use all the features of the target Scheme implementations
where it makes sense (while still retaining a portable API, so that
switching from one Scheme implementation to another doesn't require
rewriting programs that use the libraries).

The base64 and gzip libraries at
<https://github.com/scheme-live/live/tree/a53b6365e9f1121d92ee5afb7bc55f03ba78bf34/live/encoding/filter>
are an example of this approach.

One great advantage of libraries that are portable to many Scheme
implementations is that it's a big encouragement to the authors of our
existing implementations to continue their work. The Scheme community
has a tradition of "implementation wars", which thankfully aren't really
wars but more like debates. Our experience so far shows that we can't
agree which Scheme implementation is the main one. The future of Scheme
will continue to be based around many implementations, so making the
most out of those implementations would be the most useful realistic
outcome and would keep morale.

(The attempt to raise one Scheme implementation as the standard one
resulted in Racket which is now its own community.)

The Smalltalk community has long had an interest in portable systems
that reproduce exact behavior (e.g. arithmetic should produce
bit-identical results on different computers). They pay a heavy price
for that goal: Smalltalk implementations are not that fast, and they
tend to become their own little islands, hard to connect to other
languages and systems. For correctness, the portability is wonderful,
though.

> Also I support your approach to request some formal acknowledgement
> for this monorepo: the projects you mentioned below have tried to
> reach an informal consensus, but did not succeed, it can be improved
> and that is not wasted effort. scheme-live can probably re-use some of
> those libraries.

Thanks! Indeed, libraries can and should be copied from one collection
to another, and a common collection should start with many of the SRFIs
and pre-SRFIs we already have.

> Those are great projects. Also it shows there is a strong interest
> about the subject.

Yes, they're great starts. The challenge is how to persuade all these
people to work on one collection instead of 5-10 different ones :)