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

From: Geoffrey S. Knauth (geoff at knauth.org)
Date: Mon Nov 24 05:21:39 EST 2008

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:32:41 +0200, kbohdan at mail.ru said:
> Again, choosing between r6rs portability and PLT power *is* constraint.
> Portability *is* requirement when I'm going to create some real-world 
> (non-research, non-study and not a game) software.

You had some interesting points, but I'll focus on this one.  If
portability is important (it's usually a good thing), and R6RS has not
emerged beautiful enough for PLT to ground their current work in it,
then someone has to pay, in sweat or money or love, to make a R6RS
DrScheme happen.  My question to PLT would then be, "If someone were
driven to create a R6RS-pure DrScheme, is it madness?  Is it needless? 
Is it akin to the Emacs/XEmacs split?  Or maybe it is no big deal?"  I
also remember the idea was floated of a translator, something that could
generate R6RS code.

DrScheme is not a game or toy.  It is more like a gift of stem cells. 
It can be used for world class real-world software.  The pieces have
been coming together for years.
Geoffrey S. Knauth | http://knauth.org/gsk

Posted on the users mailing list.