[Nota Bene: If you're new to the list, you should know that I don't
speak for Scsh. Olin and Brian C. will quite likely write with
opposing views, and they *do* speak for Scsh.]
> Since the discussion goes on whether to base scsh on another Scheme
> implementation, let me ask, what exactly makes SCM a bad choice?
It seems like when the discussion about Guile was happening on
comp.lang.scheme, several people spoke out against SCM as the base
system based on their experiences with adapting it. My only
experience with hacking it was altering the front-end and, while it
wasn't exactly clean family-values fun, I didn't think of that as
But as it stood (stands?), SCM didn't come with a clean way of
extending the system (via foreign function interfaces), it didn't have
a nice intrinsic macro system (installing a new rep which decided to
change error messages, for instance, never struck me as being
particularly elegant), it didn't have the ability to add new "types"
(or variants, for you pedants), and probably most of all, it had no
program structuring tools. For its highs and lows, Scheme48's module
system seems to have served Scsh quite well.
I'm sure all these reasons (and others) factored into the original
choice of SCM. Some of these may still apply.
A few comments about specific points:
> - scsh could use all the libraries. Imagine what you could do with the
> Tk GUI toolkit in scsh "shell" script.
Yes, but Guile isn't the only significant effort toward integrating
graphical capabilities with Scheme. STk and MrEd come to mind, and
they already exist. MrEd is certainly a very robust system. It's
underlying Scheme (MzScheme) provides objects and extensibility. So
this doesn't distinguish Guile in any clear way. (Since somone will
ask, the <A HREF=http://www.cs.rice.edu/~mflatt/mred.html>ObURL</A>.)
> - Maybe scsh could profit from additional syntaxes planned for
> Guile when going towards some form of elegant syntax for interactive
> shell work.
If it was clear that the two necessarily had much in common. I
thought the alternate syntax for Guile was to make it compatible for
parenophobes, ie, a C-like syntax. But that's not necessarily any
more optimal for command-lining.
> - I'm sure the guile people will implement something like scsh
> sooner or later, limiting scsh's audience further.
Dem' sound like fightin' words (ObSmilie goes here). I think this is
better put as, "Guile would want Scsh's functionality; why not make it
easier for Guile?"
> - Guile is probably the Scheme implementation with the best chances to
> get a fancy development environment in the near future.
Depends. What will your "fancy development environment" have? I mean
specifically, and by when, and for what subset of the language?
MzScheme already has a bunch of tools available.
> P.S. Is there an archive of this list available?
Do you how appealing Chinese food looks several *years* after it was