[r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS
newton at mit.edu
Sat Oct 27 12:57:04 EDT 2007
> A standard which is largely unimplemented is a useless standard,
> insofar as it is a list of suggested features. However, the Scheme
> community already has and had a mechanism for making lists of
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 3795 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.r6rs.org/pipermail/r6rs-discuss/attachments/20071027/943cf797/attachment.bin
More information about the r6rs-discuss