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

From: Robby Findler (robby at cs.uchicago.edu)
Date: Tue Nov 18 13:35:11 EST 2008

I believe this reasoning rules out lots of languages (those listed
below included).


On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:18 AM, Ernie Smith <esmith at acanac.net> wrote:
> 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.
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Posted on the users mailing list.