On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:52:41 -0400, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> My question is, why do we need a standard as tiny as
> this, when tiny R5RS-compliant systems that are perfectly practicable
> for the purposes mentioned above, like chibi-scheme, already exist?
> (Version 0.2 has 4308 lines of C and 708 lines of Scheme, plus 578 lines
> of Scheme in tests.)
Of course, nearly every Scheme is going to use many more features than
what is provided by a pure, academic core quintessential Scheme standard.
However, breaking apart the standard into many parts gives use some
niceties in writing papers, describint program requirements, and designing
systems. It's a clarity thing. There is some more administration overhead,
but it allows me to implement Scheme in a way that makes more sense, to me
at least. Maybe I'm just cooky. Embedded Schemes could take advantage of
this, for example. Simplistic Scheme bootstrap or VM systems could be
created, and they would be based on a standard that others could reference
when using it, &c.
Aaron W. Hsu
--
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its
victims may be the most oppressive. -- C. S. Lewis
_______________________________________________
r6rs-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
