On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Aubrey Jaffer<[email protected]> wrote: > > The number of SRFIs supported by the current release would be a good > metric of an implementation.
Yes, but it seems that the SRFIs themselves should be weighted in some way. For instance, SRFI 6 (Basic String Ports) is nearly universal, so an implementation that omitted SRFI 6 should be penalized. But SRFI 21 is only supported by Gambit. > The list is out-of-date. SCM also supports 96 and 98. SLIB also > supports 23 and 96. I'll be updating it as I get more information. > Any implementation supporting SLIB (Bigloo, Chez, ELK 3.0, Gambit 4.0, > Guile, JScheme, MacScheme, MITScheme, Pocket Scheme, RScheme, > Scheme48, SCM, scsh, SISC, Stk, and VSCM) supports these SRFIs through > SLIB: 0,1,2,8,9,11,23,47,59,60,61,63,94,95,96 I guess a second column would be necessary, then. > | Not only did I have the temerity to measure Scheme implementations > | on a hidden scale (it could have been a Ouija board), I had the > | temerity to *rank* the implementations. Furthemore, I divided them > | into four broad tiers. > > Your classification adds no objective information to the table, Admittedly it doesn't add much, but there is no point in pretending that all implementations are equal. PLT Scheme is clearly a more important implementation than VSCM. > while > it ignores the most important distinction between implementations: > whether they support R4/5RS or R6RS. Programs are not interoperable > between R6RS and R4/5RS, so that is the most important distinction to > make in your table. I have deliberately omitted that distinction. I will explain why later. > Please remove your arbitrary tiers and classify implementations by > which standard(s) they hew to. No. But you should feel free to make your own spreadsheet or document. -- ~jrm _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
