> I'd be interested in your SDL interface. Are you going to make an egg > of it? (Of course there is already an SDL egg but I assume yours is > different.)
Yeah I will soon. I'll have to document it first, and I have to add a couple more features. It supports image, ttf, and mixer in hopefully an intuitive way. > Ah you are from indiana.edu, I hear they are big on scheme there. > Oh yes, it's quite a nice place if you like scheme. they all use Chez Scheme, which is really great but costs thousands of dollars for the compiler. > On 3/27/06, Matthew David Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, I am wondering if someone could briefly list some of the advantages > > of CHICKEN over Gambit. So far I see that the CHICKEN compiler is much > > easier to work with, and I think performance might be more consistant, and > > CHICKEN has a bunch of eggs. All of the optional scheme functions in > > CHICKEN seem much better, with more intuitive names, like "random" and > > "randomize" and "system". > > Gambit has the immediately obvious advantages of the numeric tower and a > > nice interpreter with edit-line abilities (like "read-line"), all under > > LGPL, but it's much harder to work with the compiler and extensions, and I > > was wondering if "under the hood" it's not as good as chicken. I made my > > own easy SDL interface for both CHICKEN and Gambit and ran the same little > > game on both, and it seems choppy on gambit, and smooth and consistant on > > Chicken. > > _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
