[plt-scheme] Re: Is R6RS useless for PLT?

From: Ernie Smith (esmith at acanac.net)
Date: Tue Nov 18 12:18:08 EST 2008

Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> Out of curiosity, how many Perl implementations do you routinely port
> between?  Or Ruby implementations?  Or Tcl implementations?
I'm taking the above as a rhetorical question.
As such I think your point is not addressing the spirit of his question.

PLT scheme offers features one is tempted to take advantage of.
BUT the number of people maintaining PLT scheme is so small one has
to view them as an endangered species.

Willy-nilly use of extensions is detrimental to portability,
and when environment has a risk of extinction,
portability equates to re-usability.

A helpful answer to his question would be to suggest a strategy
to  keep control over the 'willy-nilly' and thus minimize
risk and maximize recourse in the possible event of extinction.

Interestingly, giving him a good answer will reduce the risk of
extinction by promoting population growth.

Simply sticking to RnRs merely makes PLT extensions esoteric.
In the event that PLT scheme is no more, what is my emigration strategy
for my body  of work?  What can I do now to minimize that problem 
without also ruling out all the extended features?
I think that is more the spirit of his question.

I'm interested in that answer myself.

Posted on the users mailing list.