The name "dev-scheme" seems to me to be a little bad mainly because the word scheme is now used so frequently in or as part of the name of applications today. A freshmeat search turned up 136 projects with scheme attached to it (wasn't logged though so maybe this is lower with some filtering). I've honestly never heard of "Scheme" before now so I did a little googling.
While my initial google search enlightened me a little more on what "Scheme" you are referring to (search turned up the following, Scheme is a statically scoped and properly tail-recursive dialect of the Lisp programming language invented by Guy Lewis Steele Jr. and Gerald Jay Sussman). Because this lists "Scheme" as a dialect of lisp rather than a completely separate language and add to that the confusion that may arise with the usage of the word scheme in applications today. I would argue there is a pretty good reason to keep any "Scheme" interpreters in lisp even if it is rather tedious.
Just my 2 cents,
Blake Matheny wrote:
I know this is policy, but in the case where there are several interpreters available (such is the case of Scheme), might it be more reasonable to put a popular interpreter in dev-lang, and the rest into dev-scheme? This should keep clutter in dev-lang to a minimum, and still allow users to easily browse by their preferred language. What is the thought here?
-Blake
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
