[r6rs-discuss] Thoughts on Scheme's Future

[Thomas Lord]

On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 22:49 +0100, David Rush wrote:
> 2009/9/4 Grant Rettke <grettke at acm.org>:
> > Antonio touched on a key point here, if the goal of the
> > standardization is to grow Scheme's industrial use
> 
> This is mot merely the key point. It is the crucial point and may be
> the split between Thing1 and Thing2.
> 
> I think that Thing1 == experimental language & implementation testbed.


I think that thing1 is for lightweight implementations
such as in embedded systems and future servers.  And that
thing1 is a clear expression of the core ideas of scheme
vis a vis the pun between lambda, a precise semantics, and
an obvious family of implementation techniques.  I can't
believe that this needs to be said again and again but
in multiple threads, it apparently does.  "How quickly 
they forget...."



>                 Thing2 == industrial use platform

I think thing1 is probably more important for industrial
use in the long term, thing2 more in the short term.
Thing2 seems a bit of a distraction, from my perspective.


-t


> There is clear compatibility between the ideas here, but the decision
> criteria for features & the kind of specification used for them might
> well be very different.
> 
> david rush