Marko Rauhamaa <ma...@pacujo.net> writes: > taylanbayi...@gmail.com (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.) Taylan
