Scheme as a virtual machine?

[Ertugrul Söylemez]

namekuseijin <namekuseijin at gmail.com> wrote:

> Take haskell and its so friggin' huge and complex that its got its
> very own scary monolithic gcc.  When you think of it, Scheme is the
> one true high-level language with many quality perfomant backends --
> CL has a few scary compilers for native code, but not one to java,
> .NET or javascript that I know of...

What exactly is "friggin' huge" and "complex" about Haskell, and what's
this stuff about a "very own monolithic gcc"?  Haskell isn't a lot more
complex than Scheme.  In fact, Python is much more complex.  Reduced to
bare metal (i.e. leaving out syntactic sugar) Haskell is one of the
simplest languages.  Since recent versions of GHC produced code is also
very small.

The only downside of Haskell is that the popular VMs like JVM and .NET
are not supported.  But that's also because their type systems are very
incompatible.  Haskell can express types, which they can't express.  The
only thing I could imagine to bring the worlds together is another
foreign function interface, a JFFI and a VESFFI.

In my opinion Scheme is not the "one true high-level language".  For me
personally Haskell gets much closer to this.  For others it's probably
Common Lisp or something else.


Greets,
Ertugrul


-- 
nightmare = unsafePerformIO (getWrongWife >>= sex)
http://ertes.de/