sperber(a)informatik.uni-tuebingen.de (Michael Sperber [Mr. Preprocessor]) writes:
> >>>>> "Uwe" == Uwe Brauer <oub(a)eucmos.sim.ucm.es> writes:
> Uwe> Thanks for the link. This I was looking for. As I understood it
> Uwe> Guile is not considered seriously, why?
> The biggest shortcoming is its deep-rooted dependence on
> conservative GC. Besides, nobody ever sent me any strong arguments
> *for* Guile.
The strongest argument for Guile is, as you state, "the biggest active
development group." Guile is the future extension language of GNU,
and using that might not be such a bad idea. But ultimately, a
hypothetical replacement language should be chosen by its technical
rather than political merit.
> The thing that never ceases to amaze me is that, even though Guile
> seems to have the biggest active developer group of all the Scheme
> implementations, it is only slowly, if at all, catching up with the
> implementation quality of other, more carefully designed and better
> engineered Schemes, some of which are essentially one-man projects.
I think the "open-source" model is deeply overhyped. Maybe someone
will write a new essay that explains its shortcomings in some detail.