Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Andrew C. Suttles]

I know this is going to sound troll-ish, but I really don't mean for it to be.
I have been an Emacs user for quite some time and I've learned to hack my way
around ELSIP some.  I'd like to make a structured attempt to learn LISP(ish)
programming and read SICP (etc) and so I searched the net and installed PLT.  I
recently re-stumbled across Guile and I'm wondering if I should give it another
try.  I like that I have the guile manual available in my Emacs info browser and
I like that Guile can handle Elisp (though I'm not sure how I would ever use it
that way).  I always thought Guile's only useful domain was as an extension
language.

1) Is Guile used by anyone to create standalone apps, or is it primarily an
language to be imbedded into other language apps?  Given that it cannot be
compiled to native code, I'd assume it's mainly used for light scripting and the
extension language stuff.

2) Is it possible to use Guile on MS Windows apart from cygwin?

I've seen the GOOP and ECMAScript stuff and I read a quote to the affect that
Guile is more CL-like than other Scheme impelementations (whatever that means),
so I'm interested, but if I'd be better off sticking with something more
noob-oriented and library intensive (as a beginner) like PLT, I'd be happy to
continue my current trajectory.

Thanks,
Andrew

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Greg Troxel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 227 bytes --]


I have written standalone programs in guile, and I think it does ok at
that.  goops is very cool, and like CLOS, but more scheme-ish (meaning
there is one namespace rather than a separate variable/function/class
namespace).



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 194 bytes --]

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Neil Jerram]

"Andrew C. Suttles" <andrew.suttles@gmail.com> writes:

> I know this is going to sound troll-ish, but I really don't mean for it to be.
> I have been an Emacs user for quite some time and I've learned to hack my way
> around ELSIP some.  I'd like to make a structured attempt to learn LISP(ish)
> programming and read SICP (etc) and so I searched the net and installed PLT.  I
> recently re-stumbled across Guile and I'm wondering if I should give it another
> try.  I like that I have the guile manual available in my Emacs info browser and
> I like that Guile can handle Elisp (though I'm not sure how I would ever use it
> that way).  I always thought Guile's only useful domain was as an extension
> language.

That is its nominal purpose, but there isn't really a clearcut line
between use as an extension language and use for "standalone apps".
Both involve a mixture of C and Scheme code.

If we must try to draw a line, the question that occurs to me is "what
language is the main loop written in?"  But I don't think that's really
meaningful.  I can imagine a program with application-specific
primitives written in C, and lots of higher-level logic in Scheme, and
where moving the main loop from Scheme to C (or vice versa) would change
only an insignificant fraction of the program.

To try to be a bit more helpful: from a free software / GNU project
point of view, I think the ideal is that application developers should
try to write both

- a complete and consistent library of application-domain primitives,
  which could be loaded and used by any instance of Guile

- a main program that uses that library and presents their favoured UI.


> 1) Is Guile used by anyone to create standalone apps,

Yes, certainly.

> or is it primarily an
> language to be imbedded into other language apps?

Covered above.

>  Given that it cannot be
> compiled to native code,

True, but that's on the (mental) roadmap.

> I'd assume it's mainly used for light scripting and the
> extension language stuff.

I think that just begs the definition of "light".  Someone may have a
Guile app that runs for a week - which would be fine if they only need
its output once a week.

> 2) Is it possible to use Guile on MS Windows apart from cygwin?

Yes, I believe so.  The mingw32 cross-compiler successfully builds Guile
1.8.7 (build log at http://www.ossau.uklinux.net/guile/snapshots/).
However I haven't recently tested that the built executable and DLLs
work.

We don't yet have a successful cross-compile of Guile's master branch -
i.e. which will become Guile 2.0 - but that should happen in the next
few months.

> I've seen the GOOP and ECMAScript stuff and I read a quote to the affect that
> Guile is more CL-like than other Scheme impelementations (whatever
> that means),

It means that Guile is trying to retain its dynamic nature -
i.e. supporting interactive programming within a running Guile system -
at the same time as improving compilation (currently to a virtual
machine bytecode).  Some Scheme implementations, and arguably R6RS,
apparently focus on compilation at the expense of interactivity.

> so I'm interested, but if I'd be better off sticking with something more
> noob-oriented and library intensive (as a beginner) like PLT, I'd be happy to
> continue my current trajectory.

Why not give Guile a quick try?  I'm sure it should be able to interpret
SICP's code.

Regards,
        Neil

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[David Pirotte]

Le Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:57:03 -0500,
"Andrew C. Suttles" <andrew.suttles@gmail.com> a écrit :
 
> 1) Is Guile used by anyone to create standalone apps, or is it primarily an
> language to be imbedded into other language apps?  Given that it cannot be
> compiled to native code, I'd assume it's mainly used for light scripting and the
> extension language stuff.

I have written 7 applications and 3 intranet web page 'generators' industrially
used every day [some of them since many years]. Entirely written in scheme [guile -
no C code], I intensively used ans still uses goops. They all connect to a postgres
[large] db and uses guile-gnome for the GUI.

Cheers,
David

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Andrew C. Suttles]

Neil Jerram wrote (on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 at 00:42 +0000):

[snip]
> 
> Why not give Guile a quick try?  I'm sure it should be able to interpret
> SICP's code.
> 
> Regards,
>         Neil

Neil -

Thanks for the encouragement. A helpful/informative post like this is just the
nudge I needed to take the leap into the world of Guile/Scheme.

Thanks for the info.

Andrew

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Andrew C. Suttles]

David Pirotte wrote (on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 at 11:52 -0200):

> I have written 7 applications and 3 intranet web page 'generators' industrially
> used every day [some of them since many years]. Entirely written in scheme [guile -
> no C code], I intensively used ans still uses goops. They all connect to a postgres
> [large] db and uses guile-gnome for the GUI.
> 
> Cheers,
> David


Thanks, David, for the real-world example.  I will definitely start plaing with
Guile.

Andrew

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[David Fang]

> Neil Jerram wrote (on Fri, 18 Dec 2009 at 00:42 +0000):
> [snip]
>> Why not give Guile a quick try?  I'm sure it should be able to interpret
>> SICP's code.
>> Regards,
>>         Neil
>
> Neil -
> Thanks for the encouragement. A helpful/informative post like this is just the
> nudge I needed to take the leap into the world of Guile/Scheme.
> Thanks for the info.
> Andrew

Hi,
 	Just to toss in my $.02, I was able to teach myself Scheme using 
guile (1.6 and 1.8) a few years ago by going through the SICP book, and 
now I use it regularly for development.  There were very few minor 
differences that you'll be able to find along the way.  I wish I wrote all 
those down as I went along, but they were easy enough to figure out.
Happy scheme-ing.

Fang

David Fang
http://www.csl.cornell.edu/~fang/
http://www.achronix.com/

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Gour]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1335 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 00:42:53 +0000
>>>>>> "Neil" == Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> wrote:

Hello,

another noob trying to learn as much Scheme as possible to tweak
Gnucash using Guile...

Neil> Why not give Guile a quick try?  I'm sure it should be able to
Neil> interpret SICP's code.

I see there are lot of books dealing with Scheme and wiki page on
Gnucash site speaking about learning Scheme says that "Mastering
Scheme is highly eased after reading TSPL."

After starting with it and trying examples in guile, I've quickly
found out that e.g. guile-1.8.x does not support some stuff from the
book (e.g. using square brackets to delimit bindings of let expr.).

I'm aware that guile-1.9.x has brought support for it, but gnucash
support only guile-1.8 and upcoming gnucash-2.4 won't support
guile-2.0 either (no idea how hard it would be to support it), but
considering my primary objective is to learn "guile for gnucash" I
wonder if sticking to guile-1.8.x is better option for my learning?

Another thing, since I use Emacs, I'd appreciate some hing which mode
to use for guile code?

I see there is Quack and I've just found out about Geiser...


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 

Gour  | Hlapicina, Croatia  | GPG key: F96FF5F6
----------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Neil Jerram]

Gour <gour@gour-nitai.com> writes:

> After starting with it and trying examples in guile, I've quickly
> found out that e.g. guile-1.8.x does not support some stuff from the
> book (e.g. using square brackets to delimit bindings of let expr.).

True.  But you should be able to work around that just by changing [
and ] back to ( and ).

(Personally I dislike those square brackets, and it seems to me an
unhelpful editorial choice to use them in TSPL.  I don't recall my copy
having them; perhaps yours is a newer edition.)

> I'm aware that guile-1.9.x has brought support for it, but gnucash
> support only guile-1.8 and upcoming gnucash-2.4 won't support
> guile-2.0 either (no idea how hard it would be to support it), but
> considering my primary objective is to learn "guile for gnucash" I
> wonder if sticking to guile-1.8.x is better option for my learning?

For learning the language, and tweaking gnucash, yes, I'd say guile-1.8
is the better option.

> Another thing, since I use Emacs, I'd appreciate some hing which mode
> to use for guile code?
>
> I see there is Quack and I've just found out about Geiser...

For all the options apart from Geiser, see `Using Guile in Emacs' in the
manual.  For Geiser I guess you don't need help, as you say you've
already found out about it.

      Neil

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Gour]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1506 bytes --]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 10:05:49 +0000
>>>>>> "Neil" == Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> wrote:

Neil> True.  But you should be able to work around that just by
Neil> changing [ and ] back to ( and ).

OK.

Neil> (Personally I dislike those square brackets, and it seems to me an
Neil> unhelpful editorial choice to use them in TSPL.  I don't recall
Neil> my copy having them; perhaps yours is a newer edition.)

Well, it's my mistake. The choice is pointing at 2nd ed. while I've
started with the latest (4th ed.) thinking that "newer is better". :-(

Of course, you're right, the example with square brackets is not
present either in 2nd nor in 3rd edition of the book.

Neil> For learning the language, and tweaking gnucash, yes, I'd say
Neil> guile-1.8 is the better option.

It seems that it won't be so easy to add support in gnucash
considering that 2.0 is big jump in guile's evolution?

Neil> For all the options apart from Geiser, see `Using Guile in Emacs'
Neil> in the manual.  For Geiser I guess you don't need help, as you
Neil> say you've already found out about it.

Well, I've only found 'Geiser', but not installed it (yet), so I'm
open for relevant tips from experienced Guile-ers what is good
major-mode for Emacs, although at the moment I got on #scheme hint
just to use paredit and not some major-mode. ;)


Sincerely,
Gour

-- 

Gour  | Hlapicina, Croatia  | GPG key: F96FF5F6
----------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Grant Rettke]

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> wrote:
> True.  But you should be able to work around that just by changing [
> and ] back to ( and ).
>
> (Personally I dislike those square brackets, and it seems to me an
> unhelpful editorial choice to use them in TSPL.  I don't recall my copy
> having them; perhaps yours is a newer edition.)

The current version of _TSPL_, 3, is based on R6RS.

Maybe using the 2nd version would be a better fit for learning Scheme
with Guile?

http://www.scheme.com/tspl2/

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Gour]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 749 bytes --]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:20:17 -0500
>>>>>> "Grant" == Grant Rettke <grettke@acm.org> wrote:

Grant> The current version of _TSPL_, 3, is based on R6RS.

Hmm, based on what I see, the current version is _TSPL_, 4 and it is
based on R6RS, while 3rd ed. is still, afaics, based on R5RS.

Grant> Maybe using the 2nd version would be a better fit for learning
Grant> Scheme with Guile?

Now, I'm reading guile-1.8.x docs, but then I'll try with 3rd edition.


Sincerely,
Gour

p.s. As far as Geiser is concerned, it is not appropriate since it
requires "Guile 1.9.9 or better", so we'll settle on Quack for now.

-- 

Gour  | Hlapicina, Croatia  | GPG key: F96FF5F6
----------------------------------------------------------------

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Mike Gran]

> From: Neil Jerram neil@ossau.uklinux.net

> True.  But you should be able to work around that just by 
> changing [ and ] back to ( and ).

> (Personally I dislike those square brackets, and it seems 
> to me an unhelpful editorial choice to use them in TSPL. 
> I don't recall my copy having them; perhaps yours is a newer edition.)

Square brackets would be fairly easy to backport to 1.8.  Is there
an argument against doing so? 

-Mike

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Grant Rettke]

Sorry about that you are right.

On Sun, Mar 21, 2010 at 8:36 AM, Gour <gour@gour-nitai.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 08:20:17 -0500
>>>>>>> "Grant" == Grant Rettke <grettke@acm.org> wrote:
>
> Grant> The current version of _TSPL_, 3, is based on R6RS.
>
> Hmm, based on what I see, the current version is _TSPL_, 4 and it is
> based on R6RS, while 3rd ed. is still, afaics, based on R5RS.
>
> Grant> Maybe using the 2nd version would be a better fit for learning
> Grant> Scheme with Guile?
>
> Now, I'm reading guile-1.8.x docs, but then I'll try with 3rd edition.
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Gour
>
> p.s. As far as Geiser is concerned, it is not appropriate since it
> requires "Guile 1.9.9 or better", so we'll settle on Quack for now.
>
> --
>
> Gour  | Hlapicina, Croatia  | GPG key: F96FF5F6
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
http://www.wisdomandwonder.com/

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Neil Jerram]

Mike Gran <spk121@yahoo.com> writes:

>> From: Neil Jerram neil@ossau.uklinux.net
>
>> True.  But you should be able to work around that just by 
>> changing [ and ] back to ( and ).
>
>> (Personally I dislike those square brackets, and it seems 
>> to me an unhelpful editorial choice to use them in TSPL. 
>> I don't recall my copy having them; perhaps yours is a newer edition.)
>
> Square brackets would be fairly easy to backport to 1.8.  Is there
> an argument against doing so? 

Well...

neil@laruns:~$ guile
guile> (version)
"1.8.7"
guile> (define [a 2)
guile> [a
2

But that's hardly a big deal; recognizing [ and ] as ( and ) could be
subject to a reader option.

(Also at one point we had support for Elisp vector syntax.  I'm not sure
how that ended up in 1.8.x, but in any case any possible problem is
still covered by a reader option.)

So if you feel like backporting this, please go ahead!

    Neil

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Neil Jerram]

Gour <gour@gour-nitai.com> writes:

> It seems that it won't be so easy to add support in gnucash
> considering that 2.0 is big jump in guile's evolution?

Ideally we (meaning the core developers) will have time to do more work
on 1.8 - 1.9/2.0 compatibility before the 2.0 release, including by
working with gnucash, so that we can understand and hopefully fix the
problems.

Regards,
     Neil

Re: Is Guile Useful to a Scheme Noob

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Neil Jerram <neil@ossau.uklinux.net> writes:

> So if you feel like backporting this, please go ahead!

... but turn it off by default (unlike in 1.9).

Thanks,
Ludo’.