[plt-scheme] Languages and Tools

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Fri May 6 15:05:06 EDT 2005

On May 6, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Matt Jadud wrote:

>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
> It was too large.
> Perhaps the question is moot anyway; the people I'd be talking to 
> think things should be written in C "because it'll be fast." So, in 
> the end, I probably couldn't win an argument about how to 
> design/implement compilers with them--no matter how much ammunition or 
> ideas I walked away from this list with.

This is _stupid_. For this particular domain, Chez gets you within a 
reasonably small epsilon of C _and_ provides memory guarantees that C 
just can't give. Your productivity goes up and your error maintenance 
goes down. Your reputation is better. I wouldn't be surprised if OCAML 
came close to C's performance, too.

Oh, well, if they want it fast and not right, I can produce a compiler 
fast and easily. 42.

-- Matthias

> M
> Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>> On May 6, 2005, at 1:54 PM, Matt Jadud wrote:
>>> Question:
>>> If you were writing a compiler today, what tools would you use?
>> The question is too large. W/o constraints, the answer is obviously 
>> use a language in which it is trivial to process trees (the most 
>> common form of program representation) and verify whatever aspect of 
>> tree processing you find critical for your application.

Posted on the users mailing list.