danh@danpc.cris.com (Dan Haskell) writes:
>In article <5ilbk6$f85$2@news.du.etx.ericsson.se>, Robert Virding wrote:
>[lots snipped]
>>A final question which has long interested me and which seems relevant
>>to this whole discussion: who would use Tcl if it DIDN'T have such a
>>integrated interface to Tk?
>Anyone who wanted a simple scripting language that could be easily embedded
>into their applications. Last time I checked Tcl was the only language you
>could do this with. There was something called libscheme that came close,
>but did not really allow for full integration with the application.
What do you mean by "full integration with the application"? Libscheme
just lets you control the Scheme interpreter from C, what does Tcl has
that helps your integration.
Talking of Scheme's for embedding:
mzscheme is built on top of libscheme and somewhat more under
developement. Uses the same C call interface (and a slightly screwup
up install procedure). Mzscheme also has support for Guile's C
interface.
SCM and Guile are another line, using a different interface (two, to
be precises), a faster interpreter than libscheme that is slower at
startup.
The third is Elk, which focuses on using C from Lisp, can load object
files at runtime. The other systems work the other way round, by
linking the C program with a scheme lib.
Elk is very descent, libscheme as well, but guile-1.0 lacked suport
for important functions when it comes to embedding (the current
snapshots have them) and Scm is somewhat hard to build for
non-experienced people.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin_Cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de http://cracauer.cons.org Fax.: +4940 5228536
"As far as I'm concerned, if something is so complicated that you can't ex-
plain it in 10 seconds, then it's probably not worth knowing anyway"- Calvin
|