Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe <[email protected]> writes: > On 2024-09-30 02:44 +0000, Antero Mejr wrote: >> It doesn't make me feel comfortable about dedicating myself to >> Scheme as a language. > > On 2024-09-30 19:26 +0000, Antero Mejr wrote: >> It doesn't have to be this way. If a Large reference library were >> provided, then Small implementations would get Large for free. However, I >> think Scheme currently lacks the coordination to create and maintain >> such a library. I would be happy to be proved wrong on that though! > > “My way or the highway”, eh?
Not at all. This isn't about the record type stuff, to be clear. > It sounds like you are asking for big changes without offering > commitment. Scheme is volunteer work, and the volunteers don’t have > time for that. I would be happy to work on a portable reference libraries. However, it would be foolish to invest the time, since as it stands there is no way of knowing if others in the Scheme community would accept such a thing or push back. Or where to even host such a project. And a reference library, by definition, would need the support of those in charge. > You can absolutely specify and implement the things you think Scheme > is lacking. You don’t need anyone’s permission. Similarly, you could > be a liaison with the Guix crowd for us, if you think it’s unfortunate > that we don’t get more input from them. On the contrary, Daphne just explained why a Scheme Foundation is not in the cards, even though some people want it. A foundation would be great for coordinating with other projects, setting up shared project infrastructure and documentation, etc. It's just not the direction people want to go. > In short: Go! Do! I wish it were that simple.
