[r6rs-discuss] Implementors' intentions concerning R6RS
eli at barzilay.org
Sun Oct 28 11:29:38 EDT 2007
On Oct 28, Elf wrote:
> guile is/was used in tens of non-scheme products, including such
> high visibility programs as gimp.
Last time I checked, Gimp was using SIOD, and people were talking
about getting rid of it and use the python or perl interface only.
But note that the Guile response was not rejecting r6rs. Actually
most responses indicated human resources being the factor in not
implementing r6rs. That's not surprising -- the toy-nature of rnrs
for smaller values of n means that more work is needed to implement
it, which means that some implementations will stay behind. Sounds
like the same story for n=5.
> can you say that of plt?
> regardless of this, if the scheme community has always followed a
> consensus model, how did three implementations get self-elected to
> represent the entire community's wishes, and has it done a proper
> job of doing so?
Who was self-elected?
> who will develop these? plt and chez (and larceny). what about
> everyone else? heres a fun question: find which implementations
> have the most code written for them before determining who gets the
> most weight. ive done this already. the voices you are saying
> should carry the most weight in general should not.
Unless I had a serious case of reality breakdown, the weight was given
to all scheme programmers.
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
More information about the r6rs-discuss