Elf wrote: > i was not aware that 'a variety of scheme implemementations' meant 'my > implementation and two others, and to hell with what the rest of you think'. > at what point does implementor and developer opinion matter? at what point > are we part of the entire Scheme community? apparently we're not right now. >
I think that that's exaggerated. The small number of implementations taking R6 seriously (and I would include Larceny!) are, also, the most actively maintained and furthered, fairly mature and serious implementations going. SCM and Guile are close but development on them doesn't seem quite so active. Chicken is close but it is only at the stage of showing signs that it might mature nicely -- it isn't as far along as these other implementations. There's more "close but not quite" comparisons all down the line. So, two things: It's not so ridiculous to let those voices carry a lot of weight. Once again, the net effect (if all goes well) is that there will various approximations of R6 out there, and (if all goes well) libraries that are portable-in-fact will be developed, and (if all goes well) it won't be hard to adjust those libraries in response to further development. So, what's to complain about? Well, there's *words*. And it's legit to beef about how people use the noun Scheme in various quasi-official and officially-official documents. But, it seems to me that the R6 supporters are showing lots of evidence of being very forthcoming with the qualifier that "a lot of people don't like this standard and the next one will have to be better." So, there isn't left even anything much about the *words* to fight over. (Perhaps "growing a language" inevitably involves "growing pains".) -t _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
