[From nobody Thu Feb 19 16:32:13 2009
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] JAR statement
From: Ray Dillinger <bear@sonic.net>
To: Grant Rettke <grettke@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <756daca50902180522g22953710u8f82b7d477933ed3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <200902180717.n1I7HZw7012730@abbenay.cs.berkeley.edu>
	<756daca50902180522g22953710u8f82b7d477933ed3@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <1235074950.19659.46.camel@localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.3 
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:22:30 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2009-02-18 at 07:22 -0600, Grant Rettke wrote:

> > Should there be one language for both?  No; there should be Common Lisp for
> > the industrial users and Scheme for the academic users.

> Interesting! I feel like, if Scheme had a "industrial features" added
> it would be perfect for industrial users. I don't want to use CL.

> Do you think that they can be added without ruining the core?

I think that they can.  I think that was the whole idea in adding a 
module system during the R6 process.  The core language of scheme 
is, and should remain, semantically pretty simple.  But now that 
libraries can exist, "industrial functionality" can be in them. 

Don't, however, expect it to be added all at once.  :-)

			Bear

]