[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Simplified, Limited, Easy FFI: Useful?

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

    > From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx>

    > Let's consider the possibilities of a radically different approach.
    > [i.e., a compute server spec]

Sounds useful but very distinct.

I'm imagining cases like scientists wanting to bind a scientific
numeric libray without being overly tied to a given scheme.  The
latencies of a compute-server approach would be killers.

On the topic of "radical approaches" and in the opposite direction:

My handwavy conceptual view of things is in terms of a vague "design
space of Scheme implementations".

There's a bunch of huge trade-offs you can make (e.g., object
representations; GC strategies).

A truly "portable FFI" has to be agnostic about all of those
trade-offs and thus, necessarily, is limited in what it can do

I hypothesize a "non-portable FFI", largely a superset of the perfect
portable FFI, not limited in what it can do efficiently, which _does_
constrain implementations but, nevertheless, doesn't constrain them in
ways that really matter much.  But that's too big for a SRFI.