<aleogen>Hey there.. To the emacs users, is it possible to write an emacs application in guile-scheme? <davexunit>aleogen: no, but it's possible to write a guile application using emacs. :) <aleogen>davexunit: true, though perhaps favorable to others. <civodul>wingo: the other thing we need to get 2.2 in Guix is the patch to skip incompatible .go files (like what janneke submitted) <wingo>hoo yeah that's a confusing one <wingo>civodul: wdyt about changing .go for .so ? <wingo>since the files are ELF now, though not like ABI-following ELF <wingo>that would "fix" the problem, though it would introduce problem with people's build systems i guess <civodul>wingo: yeah, i think it would make people angry because all the build systems would break <civodul>and it would be much harder to have a build system that works for both 2.0 and 2.2 <wingo>i think this punts the problem down the line a bit, surely when we do native compilation we should make .so's <wingo>but i'm fine with punting it down the line :) <civodul>it's not entirely clear to me that we "should" use .so when we do native compilation <civodul>it's more of a psychological effect we're talking about, no? <wingo>civodul: i dunno :) to me a shared object that has native code and whose container is ELF should probably be named .so, just feels right; but that could be a bogus instinct :) <wingo>and .go does conflict with the go language, to an extent <wingo>if people see a .so they more or less know to expect some kind of binary artifact that's included in other binary programs <civodul>so that means we should merge a patch akin to what janneke submitted <wingo>the one other thing i want before a 2.1.3 is some idea about how to do async i/o -- i think i'll have something soon. i had to research windows a bit, blah -- though it turns out their async i/o facilities are better than ours (!) <wingo>i have some free time this upcoming weekend <wingo>wdyt about aiming for a 2.1.3 on saturday? <civodul>i won't be available this saturday, but i don't think i'm really needed at this point? :-) <wingo>yeah i think i'm good to get it out, i just wanted to suggest a time-frame :) <civodul>it should have this .go compatibility thing, IMO <wingo>the 2.1.2 perf is strikingly better than 2.0 <wingo>ecraven: thank you! and thank you for the benchmarking, it is fun :) <ecraven>:) mostly not my work, all the benchmarking code already existed <civodul>wingo: often close to Chicken, which i think is a good sign! <wingo>civodul: i think when we get native compilation we will be able to grab the occasional first prize :) <civodul>sometimes better than Stalin already ;-) <wingo>you're just annoyed at bigloo ;) <civodul>and thanks wingo for making 2.2 routinely twice as fast as 2.0! <ecraven>if you know of any options to make things run faster for any scheme, please tell me :) mejja yesterday gave me options to make stalin a lot faster than with only "-On" <hckiang>Hi, I am Haochi Kiang from Hong Kong and Macau, and I am interested in joining you and start contributing to Guile. I have been programming for 7-9 years, did a CS degree, and is a free software fan. May I know what are some very first things I can help, and where should I get started from? :-) <nalaginrut>hckiang: Guile manual is very good to read for new comer <davexunit>hckiang: the best way to find a way to get involved is to first try to write something in Guile that solves a real problem that you care about. <civodul>Someone will have to write crazy macros to do that in Scheme <davexunit>civodul: are you saying that this is something easier implemented in Ruby than Scheme? <davexunit>(having written a lot of Ruby and Scheme, it's hard to believe, ;) <civodul>davexunit: no, i don't think so, but i find the result quite convincing <civodul>i'm guessing it would be useful and fun to implement it in Scheme <kwrooijen>Is there a nicer way to write (lambda (x) (cons 1 x)) ? Feels like I'm missing something simple <davexunit>kwrooijen: could you explain why the above is not nice? <kwrooijen>davexunit: Well I thought maybe there's just an easier way to write it. For exmaple Clojure has the lambda shorthand #(cons 1 %) <kwrooijen>Thought maybe was a shorter way to write anon procs <taylan>you can use SRFI 26: (cut cons 1 <>) <davexunit>cut is cool, but it's definitely not as clear as the original example <kwrooijen>Doesn't really feel like that's a very standard way of doing these types of things though <taylan>SRFI 26 is somewhat widespread AFAIK. I'm not a fan myself though. <davexunit>kwrooijen: SRFIs are pretty standard ways of doing all sorts of things. <davexunit>ACTION anticipates the coming "standard Scheme" storm and steps away <kwrooijen>I was thinking more of what the community likes to use, based on your reaction. But I'm still new here so :) <davexunit>many people use SRFI-26. it comes with Guile. <civodul>davexunit: "crazy" in "crazy macros" is to be understood as "fun & clever" ;-) <davexunit>ACTION once again mulls over a scheme(ish) -> GLSL compiler <davexunit>does anyone know of a good explanation of hygiene for the non-Scheme programmer? <davexunit>trying to critique some Ruby code that does some very unhygienic dynamic class lookup by transforming a symbol into a class name. <davexunit>would look like to point them at a resource explaining the logic behind hygiene. ***holomorph is now known as anyone
***anyone is now known as holomorph