[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] Tangerine Edition penultimate report: how I voted, h
Re: [Chicken-users] Tangerine Edition penultimate report: how I voted, how you're voting
Fri, 18 Jan 2019 12:20:28 -0800
I thought the Great Compromise of R7RS was to have specifications for
both a small and a large language, so that everyone is happy (or at
least equally mad :-)) .
Isn't the difference with R6RS that R7RS-large draws extensively on
SRFIs which are indeed attempts to codify existing practices?
On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 5:15 PM Per Bothner <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 1/16/19 6:27 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> > So what is happening is that people are voting for more rather than less,
> > as with the Red Edition. This encourages me that I'm going in a sensible
> > direction with the large language.
> For the record, I'm extremely leery of the more-is-better approach.
> We seem to be adding a large number of very large APIs, which seems
> to be contrary to the Scheme ideal of small well-chosen primitives
> that work synergistic well together. People were unhappy with R6RS
> because of its size and that so much of it was invention rather than
> codifying existing practice. R7RS-large is the same - but much more so.
> --Per Bothner
> address@hidden http://per.bothner.com/