Re: Scheme for programmers book

Anton van Straaten wrote:
> Michael Erdmann wrote:
> 
>
> OK, so you're developing an application that uses FramerD.  An obvious
> reason to use its built-in language (FDScript) is that the language has be
en
> extended with FramerD-specific features, which isn't something you're goin
g
> to be able to do in ordinary languages.  Have you looked at the experiment
al
> bindings of FramerD to Java?
I have done this. These bindings are in some parts a reimplementation
of the database engine it self. As a cosequence a lot of functions
like distirubted computing are simply mssing.

> That might give a sense of what FramerD access
> from a mainstream language looks like, and you can compare it to FDScript 
to
> see what the pros & cons are.

Unfortunatly there seems to be no clean client interface. Server and
scheme interpreter are always bound to gether. Remote access is done by
executing scheme (fdscript) funtions remotly on a server which on  its
turn is running fdscript. But i am still in the process of analyzing
the source code.
>
> 
>
>
> I don't know FramerD's Scheme dialect, so I can't comment much on this.  B
y
> "port to Chicken", I'm guessing you mean developing a binding from Chicken
> to FramerD, and then implementing some of the features of FDScript within
> Chicken.  It's true that this will probably be easier to do with Scheme th
an
> some other language, but it may be non-trivial to duplicate what FDScript
> offers in an external Scheme implementation.  (I assume you're not talking
> about rewriting FDScript!)
No The idea was simply to port the database engine to Chicken and
may be some of the capabilities which are needed to support remote
access to a server.
>
> 
>
>
> SRFI-34 is final, not withdrawn.  I think you're referring to SRFI-12.  In
> any case, you might find that using the native exception system of the
> implemenation you choose makes more sense.
Sorry my fault.
>
> That's one of the biggest things to keep in mind when looking at Scheme: t
he
> standard feature of Scheme, as described in R5RS and SRFIs, are only a
> subset of what full implementations of Scheme provide.  If you're
> considering developing an application using FDScript, then the features it
> provides are much more important than the features of "standard" Scheme.
This is exactly the point why i was also thinking about porting the
database engine to chicken :-).

Michael

>
> Anton
>
>