[r6rs-discuss] R5RS is not a baseline
owinebar at gmail.com
Sat Feb 21 09:46:10 EST 2009
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Sam TH <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> IMHO Scheme has a noble, holy purpose: to embarrass the designers of other
>> languages into reconsidering their accretions of features, and to teach
>> budding computer scientists the virtues of parsimony.
> and again:
>> Should there be one language for both? No; there should be Common Lisp for
>> the industrial users and Scheme for the academic users.
> which makes it pretty clear that your goals do not coincide at all
> with mine, or with anyone else who wants this standards process to be
> primarily about creating a dialect of Scheme  for use in writing
> portable real programs.
> It's fine to have differing goals, but we need to be up-front about
> that fact. If we pretend now that we all have the same goals, we'll
> be very disappointed later when it turns out that we have to choose
> between conflicting goals.
Are the goals inherently incompatible (not the "academic users"
part, but the parsimony in language design part)?
More information about the r6rs-discuss