[plt-scheme] Scheme Steering Committee Position Statement

From: Doug Williams (m.douglas.williams at gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 21 16:15:42 EDT 2009

As a developer, I definitely see PLT Scheme as a large language. To me
everything in the PLT Scheme Reference Manual is part of the PLT Scheme
language. Even if you restrict it to the #lang scheme subset, I'd still
consider it large. How many other languages include: an sophisticated macro
system, a rich numeric stack (including exactness, infinities, complex
numbers, etc), classes, modules, units, contracts, pattern matching,
multiple values, exceptions, continuations, concurrency, namespaces,
custodians, and I'm bound to be missing features in that list. That's a
large language. The libraries are on top of that.

PLT Scheme is a large, rich language (or implementation, if you prefer).

Another 1cent for good measure.

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Matthias Felleisen <matthias at ccs.neu.edu>wrote:

> On Aug 21, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Karl Winterling wrote:
>  PLT is not really a ``large'' language.
> You're absolutely correct, it isn't. So now re-read what they wrote from
> that angle :-)_________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20090821/956efddb/attachment.html>

Posted on the users mailing list.