Pardon--on second thought, it would make more sense to quote this message in the thread: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045444.html in which Neil Van Dyke writes: "Just so you know, the Scheme universe is a bit different from that other languages, and I'd say that R6RS does not mean the same thing as a standard in some popular languages. R6RS doesn't represent the essence of the language, best practices, nor consensus. R6RS diverged from the tradition of earlier RnRS -- which were indeed very minimal de facto standards -- and had a very mixed reception. Scheme dialect implementors will still try to support R6RS as a checklist item, or to get some library support they don't want to implement themselves, but R6RS is not revered doctrine like language standards tend to be.
Michael Wilber <mwil...@uccs.edu> writes: > (disclaimer: i'm just a user; what i say doesn't reflect the rest of the > community) > > "Racket" is a programming language lab. Both RxRS, and the rest of the > "separate Racket language" that you allude to, are built on top of it, > not the other way around. > > What would be the advantage of being built on top of R6RS? What you're > proposing seems like just a semantic change to me. If it's because > you're uncomfortable about Racket "messing with the standard", I really > recommend that you take a look at this thread from last year and the > related messages: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045448.html > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045448.html > > As Neil Van Dyke wrote, > "When industry people come from other languages to look at Racket, > they've already placed Racket in their conceptual framework, where > "standard" is heavily loaded. So, when these people read in Wikipedia > and memetic descendants of Wikipedia that R6RS is the "standard", even > though I think R6RS should be shot in the gut and left in a ditch to die > painfully, people naturally assume that R6RS is the obvious way to go. > "Use non-standard?! Get back from me, you satan!" > > So they spend the weekend trying to do something in R6RS, stumbling over > little headaches doing that in Racket, ask questions, and are suspicious > when Racket people try to tell them to just do things in a non-R6RS way > that sounds like sneaky "proprietary non-standard extensions lock-in > bad-engineering" salesmanship. In a day or two, they've lost interest > or written off "Scheme", and they move on to the next interesting thing > to look at." > > > > > > Da Gamer <game_beta2...@yahoo.com> writes: >> I was wondering if Racket at any point in the future will be libraries built >> from or on top of R7RS small and big proper (or any future standard RxRS >> really). As opposed to being its own language. >> ____________________ >> Racket Users list: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
