On Sun, 06 Sep 2009 03:49:25 -0400, Brian Harvey <[email protected]>
wrote:
> But the toaster doesn't have a REPL either, which I think will
> turn out to be the central difference between what I'm thinking of as a
> WG1 customer (REPL) and a WG2 customer (no REPL).
Woah Woah Woah! Slow down there, mister. I most certainly *am* an
inudstrial user who likes to be able to write useful code in many
different fields, necessitating a large set of functionality (whether or
not this is built-in to the standards doesn't matter to me), so I consider
myself a WG2 customer. Absolutely I want a stinkin' REPL! The reason I use
Scheme is because it makes me more productive and allows me to do my work
efficiently and elegantly, whic results in a better product. I want the
dynamic aspects of Scheme as much as I want the compiled aspects. I use
Chez Scheme, it's definitely a compiler, and it *definitely* has a REPL.
You ain't takin' my REPL 'way from ME! I want interactive development with
compiled deployment, and that had better be perfectly possible in both. I
don't see WG1 and WG2 differing in semantics, or at least, they shouldn't.
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
