[plt-scheme] Questions on PLT status and project structure

From: YC (yinso.chen at gmail.com)
Date: Wed Oct 14 15:35:06 EDT 2009

>From another outside developer ;)

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Doug Williams <
m.douglas.williams at gmail.com> wrote:

>> Fourth,  Is there a formal roadmap for the Planet libraries - a sort of
>> wishlist from the core development group
>> or user community vote/consensus.  Similarly, is there an up to date
>> raodmap for the core PLT system?
>> I personally consider anything (not necessarily everything though) in
perl's CPAN is a fair game to add to planet. CPAN is a good bar to measure
against and can act as a roadmap, at least for people into using PLT for
everyday purposes.

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Scott McLoughlin <scott at adrenaline.com>wrote:

> I  have never been a "high ceremony"  guy, but I can imagine partitioning
> subsystems and assigning responsibility outside of the core group:
> Documentation,
> Kernel/Compiler/GC/RTS documentation, SRFI maintenance, typed-scheme /
> scheme
> integration, porting, core language evolution (immutable cons cells, lazy
> expressions
> or whatever) and so forth and so on.  Here we can maintain and publish a
> simple
> "Core PLT scheme language roadmap."

I do feel like that finding a way to have user-contributed documentations
would be helpful to have others quickly provide incremental improvements,
especially for smaller things like typos.  Scribble isn't designed for that
right now, and we might need a wiki.

That being said - I agree with Noel that the core group needs to focus their
energy on tasks that produces the highest value and that isn't to document
everything in their heads.  To have such documentations someone will need to
pickup the mantle to get the knowledge out, just like to have a particular
non-existent planet lib someone needs to suck it up and write it.  In this
sense it isn't so different from other open source projects.

>> To boil all this down to a general scheme community question, PLT has
>> become *very* popular in the
>> scheme community (programmer community, to a lesser degree) at large. How
>> stable a platform does
>> it present for a future canonical open source project should the academic
>> group behind PLT abandon
>> the platform for one reason or another (lack of funding, changing research
>> focus, etc.)
> Several of us non-academics (although I am an ex-academic) have enough
> faith in the core group and the product use PLT Scheme in our work.
I feel like the current system is mature enough that it can stay stale for a
few years and I can still be productive using it, YMMV of course.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20091014/b3ad84ad/attachment.html>

Posted on the users mailing list.