Hacker News Reader

Comment by rgrau | Hacker News Reader

There's this new implementation called "gerbil"[1] which runs on top of gambit, is still very young but looks very promising.

It's opinionated in a good way (IMHO).

[1]. https://cons.io/

View on HN

Looking at it, I'd call it a new language, not a Scheme implementation. Its semantics are much different from Scheme's.

Umm superficially you could say it is anything. The reality is it IS Scheme. (define (foo bar) (format "hi ~a" bar)) works just fine. As will any of the Scheme code, as it's merely syntactic sugar, (import :std/sugar) that you are confusing with a whole new language.

Look at things like:

    (define lst '(4 5 6))
    (set! (car lst) 3)
    (display (car lst))

    ;; 3

That's a pretty serious semantic departure. It's at least as different from RnRS as Racket, which insists it is not Scheme.

There's an SRFI for generalised set! that lots of implementations (Racket, Guile, Chicken, etc) support: https://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-17/srfi-17.html

Neat. Learn something new every day.

It's not in widespread use though.

I was requesting valid scheme that did not work properly. Given the https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ shows Gerbil passing more tests than many other implementations, it seems hard to call it a "non-scheme".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com