On 06/30/2010 03:04 AM, Noel Welsh wrote: > I really > think the Scheme world would be much much much better served by these > developers contributing their efforts to a single implementation.
In particular, one nice thing about Racket is that it provides not so much a language implementation, but an inter-language implementation interface. So you could (in theory) write a Racket module that turned itself into native binary assembler, but then use it together with another module that was JIT compiled bytecode. You could even (in theory) write a language in Racket that produced an intermediate C representation that was then compiled with a C compiler into a program. So all those programs like Chicken, Ypsilon, Larceny and such, the same effort put into those projects would have produced an equally effective Racket language capable of doing the same damn thing, while also being 100% compatible with anything written in "#lang racket". People will always disagree on exactly what's important to have in a scheme implementation, but I like to think that we could work together enough to at least be able to load each other's modules. And once that has been accomplished, I don't see why we couldn't call the system to do so "Racket" because that's exactly what Racket is. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
