On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Adrien "Pied" Piérard <[email protected]> wrote: > That's my first participation here, let's hope it will be meaningful…
Thanks for participating. > I am now wondering: what do implementers want? Do they want *their* language > for themselves, or do they want it used? > I want to support the latters. I consider that the formers want as little > features in the langage so that they can implemented what they want, how > they want, and not care about the rest of the community (portability and > joint work). There is a quote, an advice for companies that goes something like "Never forget that your the brand is owned by its community; not by its company". So take Coca Cola or Pepsi or Nike or Harley-Davidson (all popular American brands); they only have value because the community gives them value. This is my point about "types of community members" in Scheme-land: objectors to R6RS have very different perspectives that most of the people who voted for it. >> Why not define the core plus the optional industrial add ons? Why >> can't we have our cake and eat it too? > > That sounds a bit like what Marc Feeley suggested and like what I ask for. > A small kernel, and optional addons that evolve independantly. Great. The key is as you wrote below: portability. If you do the industrial version, it is correct or it is not. This is what the community wants (one community at least). > To recapitulate my wishes: > - A commitee that cares about the users of the language. All of them. And > that makes voting periods last more than a couple of weeks too > - A small language > - A HUGE set of extensions to whatever has not been set in the language (and > that may involve huge changes in the core interpreter too, I do *not* care). > I would see there non blocking IOs, sockets, threads, complex numbers, > SRFI-1, hash-tables, multiline comments, blah blah > - An breeding pool for everything else: module systems, home-made FFT, > "litterate scheme" parsers to write runnable blog posts. A mix of CPAN, > SRFIs and of gambit's dumping ground. Here, compatibility is no more, but > code is given a chance to be the next buzzword or in the next revision on > the official extensions. That is a great goal. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
