[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Request for feedback on SRFI-126

From: Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer
Subject: Re: Request for feedback on SRFI-126
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:39:13 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)

Marko Rauhamaa <address@hidden> writes:

> address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer"):
>> So we are back to square one: anyone who wants to use Scheme for
>> something real needs to pick a specific implementation,
> Which is true for other programming languages as well: C, C++, Python,
> ..
> For me, in practice, C/C++ is gcc, Python is CPython, sh is bash, Scheme
> is Guile, and the OS is Linux.

Unfortunately, Scheme is also Racket, Chicken, Kawa, Gambit, Gauche,
Chibi, and so on.  Racket individually has considerable power so they
would benefit the least from this, but a bridge between the user-bases
of the others would probably have significant benefits to all of them.
(And I suppose Racket would eventually support such an RnRS too; why not
if they support even ALGOL.)

Knowing that one doesn't have to choose and stick to an implementation
would also make Scheme as a whole more attractive.  Many people first
hear of just "Scheme" and not immediately "Guile," then they see that
one can't do anything serious with "Scheme" (standard), and the image
stains every Scheme implementation.

Guile could make a bold move like Racket and say that it's not Scheme
anymore, not caring about further RnRS at all, but I'm not sure if it
would be a good move with Guile's current stand-alone popularity.

(I hope that doesn't sound negative.  Of course I'd *love* Guile to
become for Scheme what GCC is for C, but I don't see that becoming the
case any time soon.  Racket is nearer to that, though they don't even
call themselves Scheme.)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]