Why change the name of scheme at all? Scheme is scheme, I can't even think of a more perfect name. It's seems like changing the name would just create more confusion then benefit. There is no need to have a "cool new version N name", scheme is a great name already.
The names you propose do sound interesting, but I think that small scheme should be just scheme. And large scheme, if it ends up being bunch of libs, should be just scheme-stdlib or some such. If it ends up being a separate language then call it anything you please. But small scheme should be just scheme. Pavel On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Aubrey Jaffer<[email protected]> wrote: > How about "Essence" for the large language and "Quintessence" for the > small? > > With Scheme's (historical) close connection to denotational semantics > and pioneering continuations, it arguably has a better claim than any > other programming language to "the essence of computation". > > ... Of course, to continue to make that bold claim, it must escape its > serial straight-jacket. > > _______________________________________________ > r6rs-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss > _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
