[plt-scheme] A Couple of Questions on DrScheme/Mzscheme

> So I would argue that it is less important for us to have full-featured GTK
> bindings than to ensure that we have full-featured and easily accessible
> bindings with other programming systems. For example, I was recently
> introduced to a little script that generates JNI classes from OCaml
> modules. This kind of automation eases the (I consider) inevitable
> necessity to glue together components written in different environments;
> the value of this automation, if you have ever used Visual Studio .NET, is
> something that Microsoft understands very, very well.
Hello!
What you say, has a good point. But in some way, we have these features 
already today, using SWIG.
No, it doesn't glue everything together. But I don't think other automatic 
systems can do much better work.
There is always some point of smoothness they don't reach.
For example:Consider that C has no linked lists. So if you want to use some 
library, they can have there own linked lists. What comes out if you map this 
to scheme with some fully automatic system? Some really ugly thing.
A good binding returns a scheme list (if performance allows this).
And: If  you want to write a small application, you don't want to use several 
languages.
Michael