Full name: Jay Sulzberger Statement of interest: My Lisp is the Lisp of the LISP 1.5 Programmer's Manual. But I have used various Schemes for more than twenty years. Recently I read a short piece by a physicist on why they use Scheme: because they can remember the syntax and enough standard names so they can just program. My most recent regular job is writing "Perl scripts", which scripts are written in Scheme, to help analyze corpora of various half artificial languages. I hope that Scheme will continue to be popular, and it is popular, even if it is not used by so many people as use C or Python. I think having a good standard is of use in persuading people to try Scheme. I am of the Minimalist Party, and I hope that a future standard will be have at least three parts. There should be a Scheme Kernel, then a Scheme Small, and then a Scheme Large. And I am for the Scheme Kernel having some primitives to help with probabilistic and concurrent and parallel programs. So my hoped for Scheme Kernel would be, along some dimensions, smaller than r7rs Small, but, along other dimensions, larger.
Vote : yes Rationale: I have not read carefully the entire r7rs Small, draft 9. I have read many of the comments on the mailing list, and I have read the votes. On the exact definitions of the library system and the exception system, I defer to the opinions of Scheme folk who understand these things. I agree with the three arguments-in-the-large in support of this draft: first, r7rs Small is small, second, some things beyond r5rs will help in getting more people to try Scheme, and third, r7rs is a proposed standard for an old, well known, and much loved, programming system, and so, if we are to have a new standard, not every bit can be made perfect in the eyes of all. I remain, as ever, your fellow student of history and probability, Jay Sulzberger. _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
