I've been frustrated with the situation, too. Might I direct your attention to the Snow project? (http://snow.iro.umontreal.ca/)
One of the difficulties with these things is that they kind of require a certain critical mass to establish themselves, and, so far, nothing's really done that. (SLIB, maybe?) One thing that seems apparent to me, though, is that any good packaging / library solution is going to be cross-interpreter, so we should pay attention to what's going on with PLT, Chicken, etc. On Dec 5, 2007 10:40 AM, Mike Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 10:01 +0100, Marco Maggi wrote: > > > > Pre-answer to all: the most important thing is to make clear > > > what are the priorities. With a "language for extensions" > > > (LFE) there are certain priorities, with a "Scheme > > > implementation" (SI) there are others. I fear that if no > > > choice is made Guile will be wiped out by other Schemes. > > As far as being an LFE, 1.8.x has been a big improvement over 1.6. > The API is much cleaner when wrapping stuff by hand. > > > From: Roland Orre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Today, however, I find that there are nearly no extension > > libraries available for guile. As a shell scripting language > > I prefer python because it has a very simple and clean > > shell interface. To extend my applications beyond real number > > crunching with e.g. graphical interphases (currently working > > with xlib...) I feel a limitation and have more and more often > > looked upon python where a lot of libraries are available for > > GUI, database and you name it. > > One problem here is that there does need to be a richer library > that is official and downloadable right from > www.gnu.org/software/guile. Unit test, documentation, > cgi, http, sql, md5, utf8, xml, and perhaps pickle. > > Much has been done (GEE, Guile-lib, guile-gtk, all of TTN), > but, each has its own packaging scheme, documentation > scheme. None of them are released in a coordinated manner > with the Guile releases themselves. > > This goes back to the packaging problem. After I've written a program, > I'd like to give it away for others to use. Giving code away in a scripting > language should be easy. It isn't easy here. > > First, dependencies on the many libraries are > difficult to coordinate. > > Second, most non-trivial scripts require the whole of the configure, > make, make install, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, %load-path overhead. > > Where is the analog of a Java jar file? > > Apologies if my rant has drifted off topic. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
