Hello, > What tends to happen is that people that want to do this consider > themselves Scheme programmers, first and foremost, and who do not > identify themselves with one Scheme system; so they release their code > on their own site, with info on using it with various systems, and send > mails to the various implementation user lists. > > But it's rare for an implementer to be in this category. People who > have the luxury of an implementation, if it's big enough, don't appear > to _need_ standardization so much, so they don't work on it.
Thanks for this reply. That makes sense. > Scheme is fairly polychromatic right now, culturally. You might find it > useful to interact with the various lists individually, and then come > back and work on this. Otherwise you won't really know where people are > coming from. > > For example, if you are interested in cooperation with Racket, the (very > smart and experienced) Racket people will tell you their view of the > world straight-up on their mailing lists, but are probably tired of > getting into arguments with other worldviews on more general fora. > Likewise you'd need something in R6RS for R6RS schemes. Et cetera. > > I don't mean to discourage more inter-Scheme cooperation. I like Scheme > folks and Scheme implementations. I even like Racket :) I just mean to > say that it's not just space, or lack thereof, that is a barrier to > cooperation, it's culture. Successful cooperation is diplomacy, in the > best sense of the word. Thanks, this makes a lot more sense to me. I might get in touch with Racket or some other Schemes once the parser is far enough along to be used. Noah
