It is indeed a frustrating situation. Robby
On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Neil Van Dyke <[email protected]> wrote: > Neil Van Dyke wrote at 05/14/2011 07:16 PM: >> >> Just to be clear, when I wish for R6RS to be shot in the gut and left to >> die painfully in a ditch, I mean that in the utmost nice and respectful way. >> :) R5RS was getting close to a gem (with a few warts and glaring >> omissions), and R6RS is this big thing that PLT ultimately did not embrace. >> With the effect that people have tended to start trying to do R6RS with PLT >> tools, but then wonder why there are rough edges and the PLT documentation >> is mostly full of these other things that don't seem to work in their R6RS >> program. > > To be further clear, I was not speaking there of the innate merits of R6RS, > but of the situation of the official standard and the most popular > implementation diverging. > > As someone who once went to pains to code portable libraries in a subset of > R4RS, I eventually decided that Racket was the de facto standard to follow > for now. I can always move my personal work back to RnRS or to a different > dialect, without too much pain, if I want to. For now, my only pain comes > from seeing prospective Racketeers get turned off Racket and Scheme because > they start off assuming they should use R6RS with Racket tools and then get > confused. That's why all the displaced aggression with the gut-shots. > > -- > http://www.neilvandyke.org/ > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
