A standard which is largely unimplemented is a useless standard, exceptinsofar as it is a list of suggested features. However, the Schemecommunity already has and had a mechanism for making lists of suggestedfeatures.
This mechanism has failed. If it were an outstanding success then that would make for a different story. But given the failure thus- far, I think the argument for the standard being useless becomes an argument for despair -- i.e. Scheme is dead, has failed, etc.
I personally would rather call this a success. Running my code on PLT, Larceny, and Chez is much better than what I have now. In particular, that at least gives you access to PLT when you need libraries or debugging, and Larceny or Chez when you need performance.
I sympathize with Jeffrey Siskind's argument that many Scheme implementations should be experimental playgrounds. But in my opinion, these implementations should be tailored for individual applications, used by a small number of people, and shouldn't be affected one way or another by a standard being ratified.
-Ryan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
