<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Michael Vanier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mvanier@cs.caltech.edu">mvanier@cs.caltech.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> I can't speak for Scheme48 or MIT Scheme, but I know for a fact that guile has a C interface.  </div></blockquote><div><br>As does Scheme 48<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> <div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br> /// wrote <blockquote type="cite"> <pre>On Nov 19, 12:37 pm, "Greg Woodhouse" <a href="mailto:gregory.woodho...@gmail.com" target="_blank"><gregory.woodho...@gmail.com></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre>There is a lot of discussion going on here about how many PLT users wish it would conform more closely to R6RS. As someone working in two arenas where standards are especially important (healthcare and government), I can't help but be sympathetic. Indeed, I'd like to be able to use PLT Scheme for production work, and not conforming with existing standards is a major impediment there. That being said, everyone on this list is using, or at least interested in using, PLT Scheme. Why? </pre> </blockquote> <pre>There are several reasons I use PLT Scheme: PLT Scheme is a Lisp. Many of the reasons that Lisp is a great programming language are shared with PLT Scheme. PLT Scheme has a very useful, big set of libraries not found in other Scheme implementations, and that can't be ported to other Scheme implementations because of PLT's module architecture and other features. These libraries implement important features that allow me to express ideas with simpler code. I find PLT's interactive environment to be more useful than the static environments provided by Chicken, Stalin, et al. The other interactive Schemes tend to be interpreters with no C function interface (Guile, MIT Scheme, Scheme 48), making things like database support nearly impossible. Even though "phase levels" cripple PLT Scheme's macro system in frustrating ways (forcing unwanted complexity into my code), many other Schemes are even more crippled when it comes to macros, having no support at all for syntax-case macros. Even though PLT Scheme provides an interactive development environment, programs written with it can be compiled to regular executables that load quickly. This is so important to my project, that the fact that SBCL is better than PLT Scheme in every other way doesn't matter enough to make me switch to it. Even with all the power offered by PLT Scheme, it's still dead simple, as long as you don't try to do anything too fancy with macros, and as long as you don't think you should be able to use libraries that use set-car! and set-cdr!. The module system is far easier to figure out (when it comes to non-macro code) than Common Lisp's ASDF. There is good online documentation, even for older versions of PLT Scheme. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: <a href="http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme" target="_blank">http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme</a> </pre> </blockquote> <br> </div></div></div> <br>_________________________________________________<br>  For list-related administrative tasks:<br>  <a href="http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme" target="_blank">http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme</a><br> <br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Andrew Gwozdziewycz<br><a href="mailto:apgwoz@gmail.com">apgwoz@gmail.com</a><br><a href="http://www.apgwoz.com">http://www.apgwoz.com</a>  | <a href="http://www.photub.com">http://www.photub.com</a><br>