[r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS

[Ryan Newton]

> A standard which is largely unimplemented is a useless standard,  
> except
> insofar as it is a list of suggested features. However, the Scheme
> community already has and had a mechanism for making lists of  
> suggested
> features.

This mechanism has failed.  If it were an outstanding success then  
that would make for a different story. But given the failure thus- 
far, I think the argument for the standard being useless becomes an  
argument for despair -- i.e. Scheme is dead, has failed, etc.

I personally would rather call this a success.  Running my code on  
PLT, Larceny, and Chez is much better than what I have now.  In  
particular, that at least gives you access to PLT when you need  
libraries or debugging, and Larceny or Chez when you need performance.

I sympathize with Jeffrey Siskind's argument that many Scheme  
implementations should be experimental playgrounds.  But in my  
opinion, these implementations should be tailored for individual  
applications, used by a small number of people, and shouldn't be  
affected one way or another by a standard being ratified.

-Ryan

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3795 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20071027/943cf797/attachment.bin