On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 22:49 +0100, David Rush wrote: > 2009/9/4 Grant Rettke <[email protected]>: > > Antonio touched on a key point here, if the goal of the > > standardization is to grow Scheme's industrial use > > This is mot merely the key point. It is the crucial point and may be > the split between Thing1 and Thing2. > > I think that Thing1 == experimental language & implementation testbed.
I think that thing1 is for lightweight implementations such as in embedded systems and future servers. And that thing1 is a clear expression of the core ideas of scheme vis a vis the pun between lambda, a precise semantics, and an obvious family of implementation techniques. I can't believe that this needs to be said again and again but in multiple threads, it apparently does. "How quickly they forget...." > Thing2 == industrial use platform I think thing1 is probably more important for industrial use in the long term, thing2 more in the short term. Thing2 seems a bit of a distraction, from my perspective. -t > There is clear compatibility between the ideas here, but the decision > criteria for features & the kind of specification used for them might > well be very different. > > david rush _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
