Updating OxyScheme

[Mike Lobanovsky]

Aurel,

There are at least three, possibly four (taking John into consideration), people who care about Lisp/Scheme on this forum: Charles, Roland, and myself.

And there is but one person who doesn't -- and that's you.

At any rate, we're talking about OxyScheme -- a product that's been written in OxygenBasic, and as any other O2 product, it has every right to be discussed here as long as there's at least one person willing to do so.

(I thought after all these years, you grew to know better than spam the OxyScheme threads like you did in the past.)

[Charles Pegge]

I don't see core Scheme as a complete programming language, but I'm interested in a compilable Scheme, with the few necessary extensions to work directly with DLLs, (and to perform loops without recursion!).

example:
http://matt.might.net/articles/compiling-scheme-to-c/

[jack]

hello Charles
Racket compiles to executable, though I only lightly touched it.
https://www.racket-lang.org/

[Mike Lobanovsky]

Charles,

Core Scheme seems as much abortive as a console-only BASIC and is therefore of limited interest only these days. Yet as I said, there are a number of Scheme implementations (mainly Linuxoid) that offer both dynamic library linking capabilities and GUI front-ends. What's more, their semantics is capable of interfacing Scheme apps with 3rd party OOP code and objects.

One such implementation is Bigloo. It's an established dialect whose binding grammar can be duplicated in OxyScheme to reimplement similar features in it as needed.

As far as loops are concerned, R5RS defines at least two looping macros, for-each and do, that has both been implemented in OxyScheme too -- see nsinit.scm. (though I'm not sure how functional the macros are now) Granted they are not exact replicas of their C/O2 counterparts, but in many cases they allow us to write code much more similar to that of procedural languages than Lisp-ish/Scheme-ish recursion.

[JRS]

Recursion is like waiting for the top to stop.

[Charles Pegge]

The do macro 

I think this tortuous code is a symptom indicating that loops should have been built into core Scheme.

Code: [Select]

(macro do
  (lambda (do-macro)
    (apply (lambda (do vars endtest . body)
             (let ((do-loop (gensym)))
               `(letrec ((,do-loop
                           (lambda ,(map (lambda (x)
                                           (if (pair? x) (car x) x))
                                      `,vars)
                             (if ,(car endtest)
                               (begin ,@(cdr endtest))
                               (begin
                                 ,@body
                                 (,do-loop
                                   ,@(map (lambda (x)
                                            (cond
                                              ((not (pair? x)) x)
                                              ((< (length x) 3) (car x))
                                              (else (car (cdr (cdr x))))))
                                       `,vars)))))))
                  (,do-loop
                    ,@(map (lambda (x)
                             (if (and (pair? x) (cdr x))
                               (car (cdr x))
                               nil))
                        `,vars)))))
      do-macro)))


[Mike Lobanovsky]

Hehe, unlike anarchist BASICs, Scheme dialects are not allowed to expand the language core vocabulary at the developer's volition. Standard library extensions are supposed to first stay in the library in the form of macros for years if not decades to get their functionality (as set forth by RnRS recommendations) and usefulness field-proven by the community. Implementations may differ from dialect to dialect but not the interface or place in the language keyword hierarchy.

[Mike Lobanovsky]

BTW let me note again that oxy-/nano-/mini Schemes are not yet fully R5RS compatible as-is. They still lack vector (= array) and char data type functionality. I lost interest in developing the code before I had a chance to add those features to the core language.

[Charles Pegge]

Before the PC, every home computer had its own hardware, and came with its own built-in version of BASIC and integral operating-system. So diversity was there from the start

However R5RS Scheme is, in my view, an incomplete language, so the standardisation is a bit of a cheat.

I would like to see how Scheme would encode a Windows GUI app.

[Mike Lobanovsky]

I can recollect vaguely the late Robbek used to upload a few Lisp apps here bundled with some GUI framework DLL that hung in memory so tightly we had to use the Task Manager to kill the process...

[JRS]

IUP has a Lisp binding.

Code: Lisp

1. ;;; Generated from org-mode, do not edit
2.  
3. (eval-when (:compile-toplevel :load-toplevel :execute)
4.   (ql:quickload '("iup" "iup-scintilla")))
5.  
6. (defpackage #:iup-examples.dialogs
7.   (:use #:common-lisp)
8.   (:export #:dialogs))
9.  
10. (in-package #:iup-examples.dialogs)
11.  
12. (defun dialogs ()
13.   (iup:with-iup ()
14.     (iup-scintilla:open)
15.     (flet ((button (title callback)
16.              (iup:button :title title
17.                          :action callback
18.                          :expand :horizontal)))
19.       (let* ((dialog (iup:dialog
20.                       (iup:vbox (list (button "File Dialog" 'file-dialog)
21.                                       (button "Message Dialog" 'message-dialog)
22.                                       (button "Color Dialog" 'color-dialog)
23.                                       (button "Font Dialog" 'font-dialog)
24.                                       (button "Scintilla Dialog" 'scintilla-dialog)
25.                                       (button "Layout Dialog" 'layout-dialog)))
26.                       :title "IUP Predefined Dialogs")))
27.         (iup:show dialog)
28.         (iup:main-loop)))))
29.  
30. (defun file-dialog (handle)
31.   (let ((dialog (iup:file-dialog)))
32.     (unwind-protect
33.          (progn
34.            (iup:popup dialog iup:+center+ iup:+center+)
35.            (iup:message "File Dialog Example"
36.                         (format nil "Selected ~A" (iup:attribute dialog :value))))
37.       (iup:destroy dialog)))
38.   iup:+default+)
39.  
40. (defun message-dialog (handle)
41.   (let ((dialog (iup:message-dialog
42.                  :dialogtype :warning
43.                  :buttons :retrycancel)))
44.     (unwind-protect
45.          (progn
46.            (setf (iup:attribute dialog :value) "Heap exhausted, game over.")
47.            (iup:popup dialog iup:+center+ iup:+center+)
48.            (iup:message "Message Dialog"
49.                         (format nil "Got button response ~S"
50.                                 (iup:attribute dialog :buttonresponse))))
51.       (iup:destroy dialog)))
52.   iup:+default+)
53.  
54. (defun color-dialog (handle)
55.   (let ((dialog (iup:color-dialog
56.                  :title "IUP Color Dialog"
57.                  :showhex "YES"
58.                  :showcolortable "YES"
59.                  :showalpha "YES")))
60.     (unwind-protect
61.          (progn
62.            (iup:popup dialog iup:+center+ iup:+center+)
63.            (iup:message "Result"
64.                         (format nil "Got button response ~S~%Got color ~A RGB (~A HSI, ~A)"
65.                                 (iup:attribute dialog :status)
66.                                 (iup:attribute dialog :value)
67.                                 (iup:attribute dialog :valuehsi)
68.                                 (iup:attribute dialog :valuehex))))))
69.   iup:+default+)
70.  
71. (defun font-dialog (handle)
72.   (let ((dialog (iup:font-dialog :title "IUP Font Dialog")))
73.     (unwind-protect
74.          (progn
75.            (iup:popup dialog iup:+center+ iup:+center+)
76.            (iup:message "Result"
77.                         (format nil "Got button response ~S~%Got font ~S"
78.                                 (iup:attribute dialog :status)
79.                                 (iup:attribute dialog :value))))
80.       (iup:destroy dialog)))
81.   iup:+default+)
82.  
83. (defun scintilla-dialog (handle)
84.   (let ((dialog (iup-scintilla:scintilla-dialog :title "IUP Scintilla Dialog")))
85.     (unwind-protect
86.          (iup:popup dialog iup:+center+ iup:+center+)
87.       (iup:destroy dialog))))
88.  
89. (defun layout-dialog (handle)
90.   (let ((dialog (iup:layout-dialog nil)))
91.     (unwind-protect
92.          (iup:popup dialog iup:+center+ iup:+center+)
93.       (iup:destroy dialog)))
94.   iup:+default+)
95.  
96.  
97.  
98.  
99.  
100.  
101.  
102.  
103.  
104. #-sbcl (dialogs)
105.  
106. #+sbcl
107. (sb-int:with-float-traps-masked
108.     (:divide-by-zero :invalid)
109.   (dialogs))
110.  

[Arnold]

Hi Charles,

did you find out why "when" and "do" are seen as <closure> instead of <macro>? I tried to create o2scm.o2bas with int instead of quad, but also failed miserably. For the moment, I have given up.

In the past I was unable to attend the forum for a while. That is why I missed almost everything about 'Lisp in Basic'. I now understand that I have asked some superfluous questions that have already been answered. I also noticed that John also started a topic about Tinyscheme. He referred to the link in GitHub:

https://github.com/armornick/TinyScheme

This (adapted) contribution is interesting because the prepared CMakeList.txt can be used to create a tinyscheme dll for 32-bit and 64-bit. These were my steps to create the DLLs after unpacking:

create subfolders build32, build64
using msys mingw32 / mingw64, I applied these commands in the build directories:

cmake -G "MSYS Makefiles" ..
make

which will create the dll and a main app which calls the dll. These files can be compressed with the "strip" command.

Perhaps it is also possible to call the routines of the DLLs with O2. Then everything would be there to establish the collaboration between Oxygenbasic and Scheme, which would be my real goal. I think you mentioned something similar in Message 61.

Roland
 

[Charles Pegge]

Hi Roland, Mike,

I have not cracked it yet. It might be beneficial to do a complete recode from scratch, with unit tests, improved recursion depth, and other features to make it a more complete language. I think this would be a better investment of time if the intention is to do any significant programming with Scheme.

What do you think?

[Arnold]

I myself am impressed with how Mike managed to keep the spirit of Minischeme / Tinyscheme and to implement pointer structures. After a few experiments, I do not think there is a better way in Oxygenbasic, especially as far as applying macros like car(p), cdr(p) etc. are considered. But perhaps too many sys variables are used. Another problem for me is the multiple use of ivalue and the associated casts:  quad, double or integer index of a procedure. All of this worked for previous versions of Oxygen, but in the meantime O2 has changed a bit and some side effects will have been revealed somewhere.