So, in other words, Felix tried the benchmarks pointed to by Sven and found Chicken to be lacking... :) ?
Sorry, just couldn't resist it :) Felix has a good point. For better or worse, I have briefly tried Gambit, but found Chicken's ecosystem (SRFI support, libraies) richer. Of the free Schemes available around, I found SISC and Chicken to be the most useful. For performance and numerical simulations, I found pure Chicken unsatisfactory. Mixing in some C made it better, but that quickly becomes limiting. Another good option (for me) was to use OCAML with a Scheme interpreter on top (OCS). -- Dan > Thanks, Sven. That is pretty interesting. > > But I'd like to point out that all this benchmarking > mania somewhat misses the > point. Scheme implementors are often performance > freaks (Clinger, Feeley) > and put too much emphasis in raw performance. This > is in part because Scheme > traditinionally is a playground for compiler writers > and because pure Scheme > is so useless that one is tempted to use it only for > benchmarking... ;-) > > Scheme implementers would do good by concentrating > on things that really > count (like providing extensions, foreign language > bindings and better > development environments). Scheme's metaprogramming > facilities (combined > with a good ffi) is more than enough to allow > specialized and highly > optimized code generation that is sufficiently fast > for all purposes. > > > cheers, > felix > > -- > http://galinha.ucpel.tche.br:8081/blog/blog.ssp > > > _______________________________________________ > Chicken-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
