On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:46 PM, Ryan Newton <[email protected]> wrote: > PLT has PLaneT, of course, but personally I think it would be desirable to > have basic, common packages target R6RS if they can fit there comfortably. > If no one else steps up, can PLaneT be made a multi-language package > manager, as Racket is a multi-language implementation? > > Perhaps those of us who want portability across other Schemes would port the > basic PLaneT tools to work with the hypothetical subset of R6RS PLaneT > packages? Other Scheme's would be second class citizens, but it would be > nice to have SOMETHING to plug into for packages.
I can't imagine anyone objecting to this, but I can't imagine any core developers doing this either -- it doesn't seem like a high priority to me. I'm a bit conflicted about R6RS to be honest. I don't really see the value from having many implementations. Look at Ikarus for example: a great compiler but there hasn't been a new release for 2 years. Would the Scheme ecosystem be better off with Ikarus as part of Racket, or as a separate project? Surely the former. Now look at Haskell -- GHC is by far the dominant implementation and even companies like Intel (Concurrent Collections for Haskell) are taking an interest ;-P There are only so many productive Scheme developers in the world. I really think the Scheme world would be much much much better served by these developers contributing their efforts to a single implementation. N. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
