STk vs. Guile

From: Kevin K. Lewis <>
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 1996 13:22:10 -0500

Perry E. Metzger writes:
> Anyone have any opinions comparing/contrasting STk with Guile?

Only some simple ones.

Guile, like STk, is supposed to provide a way to use Tk with Scheme.
Guile is also supposed to be an extension language library.

So far, however, I have only heard comments about how Guile should
provide an object system ala STk (RMS said he "definitely wants [an
object interface to Tk] for Guile". But there are no "plans" to do
this. So I think this would be like using STk, but without STklos
(which is the biggest benefit of STk, imo).

I think Guile would be best served by putting (something very like)
STklos on top of Guile.

Also, there will be some differences between Scheme and Guile. Guile
will have `(eq #f ()) => #t'. And it is case-sensitive.

Guile is based on SCM, a good-performance Scheme interpreter. I can't
comment on how fast it is compared to that of STk, but I've been
pleased with its performance in the past. And SCM works well with
SLIB, a nice Scheme library from the same author. However, I believe
STk works well with SLIB, too.

But Guile is benefiting from good discussions and strong leadership.
Things will be slow to evolve, but they'll probably be very nice once
they happen. And RMS plans to use Guile as a basis for future Emacs
development (which is the reason for the `(eq #f ())' thing).

I don't know if this was a comparison/contrast, but hopefully it
provides a little information (which I think is accurate).

Kevin K. Lewis               | My opinions may be unreasonable       | but such is the voice of inspiration
Received on Thu Sep 05 1996 - 20:25:42 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Jul 21 2014 - 19:38:59 CEST