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

From: Eduardo Bellani (ebellani at gmail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 18 13:20:30 EST 2008

Hash: SHA1

About the ruby implementations, I'll throw in my 2 cents, as it is a subject
I'm more familiar with.
The ruby mri (Matz's Ruby Interpreter) implementaion *IS* the de facto
reference, as there
is no specification of the language. What that means is that that for
a long time it dominated
the ruby landscape.
That fact forces every single new implementation (JRuby, Rubinious, IronRuby)
into a compatibility submission :P
That, IMHO, is extremely healthy for a language, at least initially,
since it kind of creates
a safe assumption that any libraries and code produced in that
language will run across

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)


On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Sam TH <samth at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk at cs.brown.edu> wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, how many Perl implementations do you routinely port
>> between?  Or Ruby implementations?  Or Tcl implementations?
> Perl and Tcl both seem to have only one implementation.  There is an
> alternative Ruby implementation, called JRuby, which describes itself
> as compatible.  There are at least two alternative Python
> implementations, PyPy and Jython, but I don't think their
> compatibility is perfect.
> All of these were developed, however, after the original language
> became well-established.
> Thanks,
> --
> sam th
> samth at ccs.neu.edu
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Eduardo Bellani


"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire
Law; all the rest is commentary." The Talmud

Posted on the users mailing list.