No defensiveness on our side. We are Racket and that's all, no more and no less. -- Matthias
On Feb 10, 2013, at 5:49 PM, Da Gamer wrote: > I'm not sure if you misread my question, but I'll reclarify what I said. > > First, I know that Racket is its own language. > > Second, I'm not talking about R6RS. I was talking about R7RS small and large. > > Third, as someone who hasn't been in the Racket community long but knows that > it is a Scheme variant, I don't see why there is an issue of asking such a > question. Is there any need to be defensive and hostile? I can't see the idea > being that outrageous, untenable, or completely unnecessary. > > Fourth, I said "in the future". As in has there been any thoughts on it. If > yes and there was a decision not to go that route, then why not share why? > Point out pros and cons, etc. > > In short, I don't need see why my question was taken as an "attack" on the > language not as user's/student's curiosity. > > --- On Sun, 2/10/13, Michael Wilber <mwil...@uccs.edu> wrote: > > From: Michael Wilber <mwil...@uccs.edu> > Subject: Re: [racket] R7RS and Racket in the (far) future > To: "Da Gamer" <game_beta2...@yahoo.com>, users@racket-lang.org > Date: Sunday, February 10, 2013, 12:13 AM > > (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
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
