[plt-scheme] 3m

From: Chongkai Zhu (u0476504 at utah.edu)
Date: Tue Jun 27 14:11:09 EDT 2006


Personally I hope 3m to be the default as soon as possible. I have use 3m
since v20x. And I do write bindings to C libraries. I don't think that C
bindings is a problem for 3m. But I do feel that some program can only
work with CGC but not 3m (at about v299.x). Recently I shift back to
CGC so I can't tell how good 3m works now.


-----Original Message-----
From: plt-scheme-bounces at list.cs.brown.edu on behalf of Matthew Flatt
Sent: Tue 6/27/2006 9:58 AM
To: plt-scheme at list.cs.brown.edu
Subject: [plt-scheme] 3m

Why 3m Might Become the Default Before Long

Whether we actually shift depends on a couple of factors. First, we
have to make sure that 3m is stable and well-tuned; although I use 3m
most of the time, my tasks form a small subset of what the people on
this list do. We are gradually widening the circle of people who use
3m, and you are certainly welcome to become part of that group.

Second, we need to make sure that most people who deal with low-level
code are ready for the switch --- especially people on this list who
write bindings to C libraries. I am interested in hearing from anyone
who works with C code about whether the switch to 3m is feasible. Of
course, we will never discontinue the CGC build, so those who embed
MzScheme or create extensions for personal use can always continue
using the CGC variant.

  For list-related administrative tasks:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20060627/e7eb9e27/attachment.html>

Posted on the users mailing list.