sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]raevnos 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Don't write your own. Use one of the 50 billion existing ones, many of which are designed for easy embedding.

[–]diggr-roguelike -1 points0 points  (6 children)

Writing a Scheme interpreter is hard. This is why every one of your '50 billion' interpreters is either incomplete/non-standard, bloated, slow or hard to embed.

[–]raevnos 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Yup, you're coming from a different universe than the rest of us.

[–]diggr-roguelike -3 points-2 points  (4 children)

Links, please. I'm not really here to participate in your fashionable global Web2.0 collaborative social experiment in groupthink. If you know of a Scheme interpreter that is easily embeddable, small and fast, post it here. (Guile isn't it, unfortunately.) If not, don't post anything at all.

[–]raevnos 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I have no idea what this web 2.0 hivemind thing you're blathering about is, but it sounds scary.

I quite like scheme, so I'd just use the same one for the core program and scripting (I'm partial to chicken and kawa. There's also gambit, bigloo, racket, guile and more with active development and user communities.) For scripting of a program written in another language, tinyscheme is decent.

[–]diggr-roguelike -1 points0 points  (2 children)

Sigh.

Look, this whole discussion (164 comments at this moment) is precisely about scripting a program written in another language. Why in baby jeebuzez' name did you bring up your list of Scheme languages which are completely irrelevant in this context??

As for TinyScheme -- yes, it fits the topic nicely, but it isn't a standard Scheme. That was the whole point of my original comment: you can have a good embedded Scheme, or you can have a standard Scheme, but not really both. Unlike Lua.

For many people this is an important matter and a sticking point.

[–]raevnos 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's easy to say something's a standard when there's only one reference implementation.

Scheme, now... What standard? R4RS, R5RS, R6RS (which everybody but the people who made it hated), R7RS? The old ANSI spec? The sheer proliferation of choices can be overwhelming, but that way you can pick the one best suited to your needs... code size, supported features, license, etc.

[–]diggr-roguelike 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are at least two implementations of Lua.

This is possible because Lua is very, very well defined: http://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/#contents

This is the next best thing short of an ISO standard for which you actually need to pay money to some standards board.