[plt-scheme] Re: PLT R6RS questions and answers (renamed thread)

From: Tom Gordon (thomas.gordon at fokus.fraunhofer.de)
Date: Tue Nov 25 04:39:49 EST 2008

Hendrik wrote:
> Indeed. Although the R6RS-only fanatics seem to be arguing that less  
> is better. Still, I expect de-facto portability could also be  
> achieved by porting PLT Scheme to more platforms. I have no idea how  
> many platforms provide PLT Scheme at the moment, nor how difficult  
> that is. - hendrik

We R6RS "fanatics" want more, not less:  more portable libraries, more  
choices of implementations, more indepedence, and more assurance that  
our investment will not be lost if one of the implementations stops  
being maintained for whatever reason.
Also, it seems ironic to be accused wanting a small langauge, given  
all the criticism R6RS has received from R5RS fans, who think R6RS has  
become too large and too much like Common Lisp.
PLT already supports enough platforms, at least for me.  That's not an  
issue for me.

Posted on the users mailing list.