Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!tahoma!bcstec!faccs!dbt
From: dbt@faccs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Scheme on a PC?
Message-ID: <121@faccs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27-Aug-87 12:35:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: faccs.121
Posted: Thu Aug 27 12:35:46 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 30-Aug-87 19:36:22 EDT
References: <316@m10ux.UUCP> <527@yetti.UUCP> <678@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> <646@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Boeing Computer Services, Seattle
Lines: 24
Summary: There *are* Schemes that produce (good) native code

In article <646@cup.portal.com>, Isaac_K_Rabinovitch@cup.portal.com writes:
> I seem to recall the refusal to provide native-code compilation is a basic
> ideological decision of the inventors of scheme, who didn't want to introduce
> the ambiguity of interpretation that would entail.

There are Schemes that generate native code. Yale's T system for Vax & 68020
computers includes a *very good* optimizing compiler. Chez Scheme (where is
this from?) I read somewhere (_The_Scheme_Programming_Language_,
Prentice-Hall?) generates code for the VAX (only?) comparable to Franz Lisp.
MacScheme, for the Macintosh, is coming out with a native code compiler as
well. I don't know what the code generation is like. (I would appreciate any
information about this one in particular. e.g. is the native code compiler
an modification of the original byte-code compiler?)

The first versions of Scheme were research implementations developed in
MacLisp and were not intended to be "real" compilers, but I never read
anything about a "refusal to provide native-code" as any kind of
"ideological decision." In fact, a lot of Guy Steele's work with Scheme had
a lot to do with compilers and compilation.
-- 
Think Green,
Patrick Logan (dbt@faccs) uw-beaver!ssc-vax!shuksan!tahoma!bcstec!faccs
Reporter: "What do you think about Western Civilization?"
Ghandi: "I think it would be a good idea!"