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.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 10:04:39 -0500, Richard Kelsey <kelsey@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 07:42:48 +0100 From: Felix Winkelmann <felix@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Now, I'm all for maximum performance, if possible. But that's not (IMHO) the proper goal for this SRFI.I am curious as to what you mean by 'this SRFI'. Do you think that maximum performace is not a proper goal for any FFI SRFI? Or only for the first one? Would you be less displeased by SRFI-50 if it appeared after a JNI-style SRFI was in place?
Maximum performance is secondary here, period. When writing code for a Scheme FFI that is too low-level and exposes too many implementation- specific details, you are walking on very thin ice. It requires implementation-specific knowledge that a user of the FFI normally shouldn't be bothered with. If the necessary abstractions have a certain performance impact, then it should be accepted. I would be less displeased having a single, portable, robust SRFI for accessing external libraries. It's as simple as that, and probably a not completely unreasonable desire.
I can understand wanting the first FFI SRFI being a safer, more general one, perhaps based on JNI or Pika. This SRFI isn't that SRFI because that isn't the type of FFI that Mike and I needed.
Sorry, Richard, but I get the impression that you have not really grasped the intention behind the SRFI process. cheers, felix