On Oct 29, 2008, at 10:13 PM, Ray Dillinger wrote: > If R6 is good, then a few years of coding experience will show us > dissenters that it's good and that we don't need to obsess on "fixing" > it. If R6 is, as I believe, flawed, a few years of coding experience > will serve to convince enthusiasts of the flaws and produce agreement > about exactly what is causing the most problems and most needs fixed.
I don't think so. What kind of scientific and objective benchmark are we going to use to measure the success or failure of a language standard? Would a 1000 libraries suffice? Who is to say. Would an R6RS application that causes a paradigm shift in computing do it? Of course not: we will argue that it could've been done otherwise and we'd be right. So, I don't see anybody proving anything here. You believe R6RS is "flawed" and I'll take that to mean "has flaws" rather than "has nothing unflawed". Don't we all think that it has flaws? It's littered with useless procedures, complex interfaces, ill-specified corner cases, buggy code, typos, etc. It definitely can be improved, and we should be working on that. And as you say: > Both R6 dissenters and R6 enthusiasts, therefore, need experience > with the thing to temper our viewpoints and focus our attention on > what issues are real and what standards work honestly needs doing. Amen! Aziz,,, _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
