Joerg F. Wittenberger wrote:
Brandon Van Every wrote:
Matthew Welland wrote:
I'd suggest going one step further and striving to keep the scheme
portion not too chicken specific. Other schemes would only have to
provide the interface layer and the bulk of the code could be
reused.
From a support and community growth standpoint, I see no value in
projects that try to be all things to all Schemes. Doing things
well on Chicken is what's important. Also, reuse doesn't mean
anything without people and interest.
I'm not sure you are right here, Brandon. The people and interest are
there. Just some of them will not jump on the chicken/gui ship when
it's chicken specific - as they refuse to jump on those other PLT or
whatever specific ships even though they seriously lack an viable
alternative.
You can of course post an abstract GUI project to comp.lang.scheme and
see what takers you get. But from a practical standpoint, you're in
serious danger of design by committee. Or a bunch of people talking and
no action. It would make a lot more sense to get it done in Chicken
with a few people, show it to the world, and show that it's actually
good. Then refactor whatever is Chicken specific about it, if you can
draft up the labor for ports.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
_______________________________________________
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
