taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") writes:
> I've made pretty fine experiences with R7RS-small so far[0][1][2][3], > and after seeing people's disdain towards R7RS-large's direction and > agreeing with them (although I wouldn't trust my own judgment alone), > I've decided to try pushing R7RS-large in a somewhat better direction. > > The benefit for Guile? I shortly summed up my thoughts on that in the > FOSDEM thread on the Guix ML; here the mail from the archives: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2015-09/msg00759.html > > Perhaps a better summary: better Scheme standards -> more libraries that > work on any implementation -> more total Scheme users & more free-flow > of users between implementations -> more potential for growth of the > Guile community. Not to mention simply more libraries Guile users can > use, from the pool of standard-Scheme libraries, without needing a Guile > porter and maintainer for every possible Scheme library. I agree that standardization would be helpful, but we already have a fine standard in R6RS. It's not perfect, but IMO it's a more promising platform than R7RS, which is so gratuitously incompatible with R6RS that it's not possible to write even the simplest library or program that works with both (wtf?). One might well argue that having two competing and incompatible standards is *worse* for standardization than having just one, hence my reluctance to support R7RS. In response to the argument that R6RS is a failure because so many Scheme implementations rejected it: R6RS already has more high-quality implementations than C++, Python, or Ruby. Having 10+ implementations of the same language doesn't seem to be a requirement for a language to be successful. In response to the argument that we should engage more in the R7RS-large process to help move it in a better direction: I wasted a ridiculous amount of time trying to get some R6RS numerics fixes into R7RS-small, and was stonewalled the whole way. I have neither the time nor the interest in repeating that experience. More to the point, I have no confidence that the decision making processes in R7RS-large will result in a well-designed standard. I agree with Andy Wingo's comments here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.reports/4005 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.scheme.reports/4019 Anyway, having said all this, I very much appreciate your sincere efforts to help the Scheme and Guile communities, Taylan. Regards, Mark
