[plt-scheme] Scheme Steering Committee Position Statement

From: Matthias Felleisen (matthias at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 21 16:33:51 EDT 2009

If you don't use the macro system (to define macros), the language  
isn't really large. Think of what you can say in C++ (const, malloc,  
types, functions, classes, templates, ...) or Java (types, incl.  
generics, boxed values, packages, ...).

But it simply doesn't matter. The Steering committee thinks PLT and  
its r6rs brother are large.

-- Matthias

For me, Java and C# are

On Aug 21, 2009, at 4:30 PM, Doug Williams wrote:

> Do you not see the things mentioned as part of the PLT Scheme  
> language proper or that they don't amount to a large language? Just  
> looking for a clarification.
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Karl Winterling <kwinterling at gmail.com 
> > wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Doug
> Williams<m.douglas.williams at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As a developer, I definitely see PLT Scheme as a large language.
> Speaking as a (l)user with rather idiosyncratic programming habits, I
> respectfully disagree :-).

Posted on the users mailing list.