Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (01 Dec 2022 22:25 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped John Cowan (02 Dec 2022 12:10 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Marc Feeley (02 Dec 2022 12:16 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 13:24 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 13:37 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (02 Dec 2022 14:58 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 15:10 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (02 Dec 2022 16:24 UTC)
Scheme Review vs. SRFIs John Cowan (03 Dec 2022 22:07 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (03 Dec 2022 22:39 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Arthur A. Gleckler (03 Dec 2022 23:25 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (04 Dec 2022 00:14 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 00:50 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (04 Dec 2022 09:34 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 10:01 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (04 Dec 2022 11:07 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 11:44 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Arthur A. Gleckler (04 Dec 2022 05:15 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Vladimir Nikishkin (04 Dec 2022 06:27 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Arthur A. Gleckler (04 Dec 2022 06:31 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 13:28 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 07:13 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Vladimir Nikishkin (04 Dec 2022 07:28 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (04 Dec 2022 09:40 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 13:16 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 09:41 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Vladimir Nikishkin (04 Dec 2022 10:06 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 10:15 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Vladimir Nikishkin (04 Dec 2022 10:44 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (04 Dec 2022 09:57 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 10:59 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 20:20 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (04 Dec 2022 18:01 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (04 Dec 2022 22:09 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (05 Dec 2022 13:31 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (05 Dec 2022 13:53 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 13:59 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Arvydas Silanskas (05 Dec 2022 16:43 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 17:44 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Arthur A. Gleckler (06 Dec 2022 00:15 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (05 Dec 2022 18:08 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 18:25 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs John Cowan (05 Dec 2022 03:47 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Jakub T. Jankiewicz (02 Dec 2022 18:18 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Arthur A. Gleckler (02 Dec 2022 18:34 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 18:39 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Jakub T. Jankiewicz (02 Dec 2022 18:50 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 21:33 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Jakub T. Jankiewicz (02 Dec 2022 22:16 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 22:34 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Jakub T. Jankiewicz (03 Dec 2022 11:24 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (03 Dec 2022 13:47 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (03 Dec 2022 14:05 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Jakub T. Jankiewicz (03 Dec 2022 15:04 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (03 Dec 2022 15:22 UTC)

Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf 04 Dec 2022 10:58 UTC

This was precisely what I meant. :)

Whilst standardising some things about FFI may be productive - boxing/unboxing between native and Scheme code, certain primitives - on the whole, I find the lack of standardisation to be a strength.

(An additional caveat - even if these are standardised, this doesn't necessarily mean they'll be compatible. The internal representations and structure are different, and standardisation could open up a huge Pandora's box of problems, as, for example, an integer representation of { 32 bit tag, 64 bit int } will not yield the same precision as a single 64bit int with a certain number of tag bits at the top - though this will not be obvious to end users.)

If I can expand on the experiment aspect, integrating with SWIG some years, and its pitfalls and abandonment, would probably have never been attempted if FFIs were semi-standardised. I like that we can play with things and try to target different possibilities.

-elf

On 4 December 2022 11:56:53 GMT+02:00, "Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen" <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>Am So., 4. Dez. 2022 um 08:13 Uhr schrieb elf <xxxxxx@ephemeral.net>:
>
>> 2) FFI code is unportable. Whilst working out standards for representation may be useful,
>> A) an implementation written in and targeting C (for example) is not going to have a meaningful FFI compatiblity to a native Java (for example) implementation,
>> B) the individuality/uniqueness of each implementation may suffer if this becomes too uniform (which would make the entire scheme ecosystem poorer, imho)
>
>The latter point is a very important one and can even be expanded.
>
>The "unportability" of Scheme (outside of the R5RS, R6RS, or R7RS
>core) should be interpreted as a good sign.  It means that the Scheme
>language is live and that people (users and implementers) are still
>experimenting, trying to push the boundaries.  We don't need 30+
>implementations if they all basically can do the same.  But we welcome
>30+ running experiments.
>
>What can be criticized in my opinion is that Scheme implementations
>make it too easy to write non-portable code, some even invite to do
>so.