🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <39ojsl$r8k@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU> Tom Christiansen
<tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:

   :-> In comp.lang.misc, abraham@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:

   :Why do you think it is a bad idea to give users of GNU tools a choice
   :of extension languages, instead of binding them too a single language
   :such as emacs-lisp?

   I just don't like that we don't get a real API, which is where this IM!HO
   should be.  Instead, we merely a SPI -- a scheme programmers interface.
   It only helps if you consent to program in scheme or some other language
   that compiles into scheme.

I don't think that an API per se is the answer. An application (or
library) provides it's API. What would be very nice would be a good
architecture for exposing those APIs to extension languages and other
applications. Essentially, we need a free version of an Open Doc / OLE
/ Corba kind of thing. ILU is one such beast (see
ftp://parcftp.parc.xerox.com/pub/ilu/1.6.4/announce.html). I think it
has some problems (e.g. no support for first class procedures) but it
would be one place to start.


-Mark
-- 
Mark Friedman
NASA-Ames Research Center
MS 269-2
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000

vmail: (415) 604-0573
email: bobo@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov