Hello, Arne Babenhauserheide <arne_...@web.de> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> writes: >> Like I wrote, Guile remains an extension language, no argument here. >> >> However, describing it as “just” an extension language seems odd to me. >> It doesn’t take into account what many have been doing with Guile, and >> it doesn’t match the efforts that have gone into Guile since 2.0. > > I don’t think that it is described as "just" an extension language. The > website makes it very clear that Guile is also a viable application > language. > > Where do you get the impression that Guile is described as "just" an > extension language? This thread is about the logo baseline, which is: “GNU extension language”. I agree that the web site is clearer; I’m just talking about the logo here. >>> Actually I’d love to see Guile become better at this: to make it easier >>> to deploy an application that uses Guile in a statically compiled >>> binary. >>> >>> Basically to generalize what LilyPond is doing. >> >> In what ways could it become “better” for this use case? > > Currently the default way to embed assumes that Guile is provided as a > shared library. But that can be problematic when you want to ship a > binary people can test easily. I think this is no different for Guile than for any other piece of software: some would ship a Docker image, and I’d argue that you can use ‘guix pack’ to generate a minimal standalone tarball or Docker image. (Though I think it’s also perfectly doable to provide a binary that’s statically-linked against libguile.) Thanks, Ludo’.
