[r6rs-discuss] JAR statement
grettke at acm.org
Wed Feb 18 11:42:15 EST 2009
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Adrien "Pied" Piérard
<axioplase at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's my first participation here, let's hope it will be meaningful…
Thanks for participating.
> I am now wondering: what do implementers want? Do they want *their* language
> for themselves, or do they want it used?
> I want to support the latters. I consider that the formers want as little
> features in the langage so that they can implemented what they want, how
> they want, and not care about the rest of the community (portability and
> joint work).
There is a quote, an advice for companies that goes something like
"Never forget that your the brand is owned by its community; not by
its company". So take Coca Cola or Pepsi or Nike or Harley-Davidson
(all popular American brands); they only have value because the
community gives them value. This is my point about "types of community
members" in Scheme-land: objectors to R6RS have very different
perspectives that most of the people who voted for it.
>> Why not define the core plus the optional industrial add ons? Why
>> can't we have our cake and eat it too?
> That sounds a bit like what Marc Feeley suggested and like what I ask for.
> A small kernel, and optional addons that evolve independantly.
Great. The key is as you wrote below: portability. If you do the
industrial version, it is correct or it is not. This is what the
community wants (one community at least).
> To recapitulate my wishes:
> - A commitee that cares about the users of the language. All of them. And
> that makes voting periods last more than a couple of weeks too
> - A small language
> - A HUGE set of extensions to whatever has not been set in the language (and
> that may involve huge changes in the core interpreter too, I do *not* care).
> I would see there non blocking IOs, sockets, threads, complex numbers,
> SRFI-1, hash-tables, multiline comments, blah blah
> - An breeding pool for everything else: module systems, home-made FFT,
> "litterate scheme" parsers to write runnable blog posts. A mix of CPAN,
> SRFIs and of gambit's dumping ground. Here, compatibility is no more, but
> code is given a chance to be the next buzzword or in the next revision on
> the official extensions.
That is a great goal.
More information about the r6rs-discuss