RScheme

[Harvey J. Stein]

Marc Wachowitz writes:
 > "Harvey J. Stein" <abel@netvision.net.il> wrote:
 > > When I last tried out RScheme, I found it to be big and slow.  But
 > > that was well over a year ago, and I believe there's been some change
 > > on that front.
 > 
 > I didn't perform real benchmarks, but my general impression is that speed
 > is quite acceptable these days, and its size isn't really a big problem
 > for something which would get into the base of an OS. Much overhead would
 > certainly disappear after moving to native code instead of C, too (even
 > without adding further optimizations, just think of all those trampolines
 > to fake tail-calls in C).

A caveat - When I was judging it I was considering it as a scripting
language, which is to say, I wanted to say #!/usr/bin/rscheme at the
top of all my scripts instead of #!/bin/sh or #!/usr/bin/awk, or
#!/usr/bin/perl.  As such, I was considering what might happen to a
Linux system on which all the scripts were written in rscheme instead
of sh, perl &/or awk, so I was concerned with things like startup
times, memory footprint, etc.  And again, this was a while ago.

 > Btw, in case someone is still looking on some old ftp server: The lastest
 > release is available from ftp://ftp.rosette.com/pub/rscheme/ (currently
 > it's rs-0.7-0.1.tar.gz).

Actually, it's rs-0.7.1.tar.gz (released April 4th), which came after
rs-0.7-0.9.tar.gz.

-- 
Harvey J. Stein
Berger Financial Research
abel@netvision.net.il