Thomas Lord scripsit: > > I think that Thing1 == experimental language & implementation testbed. > > I think that thing1 is for lightweight implementations such as in > embedded systems and future servers.
The charters describe the purposes of Thing One as " includ[ing] education, programming language research, small embedded systems, and embedded scripting languages, where it is appropriate to use a lightweight language at the semantic level and/or in the implementation"; whereas Thing Two is supposed to "address the practical needs of mainstream software development". > 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...." What makes you think that your opinion needs to be repeated on multiple threads? I try not to repeat myself unless I'm clarifying some confusion about what I said; sometimes I fail, to be sure. -- John Cowan <[email protected]> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Today an interactive brochure website, tomorrow a global content management system that leverages collective synergy to drive "outside of the box" thinking and formulate key objectives into a win-win game plan with a quality-driven approach that focuses on empowering key players to drive-up their core competencies and increase expectations with an all-around initiative to drive up the bottom-line. --Alex Papadimoulis _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
