[plt-scheme] MzScheme: extending vs. embedding to build a text editor

I strongly recommend MzScheme extension. And yes, PLT Scheme can compile 
program to native binary, but I think bytecode + native binary loader is 
faster.

Chongkai


Peter Michaux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Suppose I wanted to build a text editor like emacs where the use is
> able to extend the editor using MzScheme (rather than emacs-lisp.) It
> seems there are two main ways this could be done.
>
> -----
>
> First, I could write MzScheme extensions [1] for ncurses. The editor
> could then be written in Scheme from start to end whatever that means.
> It would certainly be a Scheme-centric implementation. I could then
> edit a file with the command
>
>   mzscheme myeditor.ss some-file-to-edit.txt
>
> (The whole program with could be compiled to a native binary somehow?)
>
> -----
>
> Second, the opposite way would be to write a very small C application
> and embed MzScheme [2] into that application. I could expose the
> ncurses API by creating and adding ncurses procedures to the embedded
> Scheme environment. The C could then load some "myeditor.ss" file into
> the Scheme environment and the majority of the editor program could be
> defined in Scheme. Since I would be compiling a C program the editor
> could be started with
>
>   myeditor some-file-to-edit.txt
>
> -----
>
> I've toyed with some other extensible/embeddable languages and the
> same problem arises. I'm not sure which way around would be the right
> way to go. I'm interested in what others would do or if there is an
> obvious definite answer I don't know because I am new to MzScheme.
>
> Thank you,
> Peter
>
> [1] http://docs.plt-scheme.org/inside/overview.html#(part._.Writing_.Mz.Scheme_.Extensions)
> [2] http://docs.plt-scheme.org/inside/overview.html#(part._embedding)
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>