[plt-scheme] Are new Schemers supposed to be reading SRFIs?

From: Dave Gurnell (d.j.gurnell at gmail.com)
Date: Fri May 11 06:11:19 EDT 2007

For my 2 cents, I think numbered libraries make Scheme look a bit old  
fashioned, and I don't see a problem with using names instead... Java  
and .Net both get away with it nicely.

 From my hazy recollection of the R6RS proposal, there will be a  
number of "standard" libraries that (I assume) will subsume really  
common libraries like SRFI 1 and SRFI 13 (and they will be named and  
not numbered). I presume this is going to break all manner of  
backward compatibility.

In other words, if the library system is going to change anyway,  
surely we don't need to worry about lots of future extensions to  
SRFIs? We can just name the SRFIs as they appear now, and look at a  
more memorable system for the future.

(I admit I'm totally ignoring an enormous legacy code problem.)

-- Dave

Posted on the users mailing list.