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

Marek Kubica wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 18 Nov 2008 20:54:16 +0200
> kbohdan at mail.ru wrote:
> 
>> As a good example of the language without single dominating
>> implementation but with excellent dominating community i recommend to
>> look at: c++ & www.boost.org. To put your library inside one must
>> satisfy a lot of requirements. The most useful libraries from *boost*
>> project will become a part of a new standard. When/If PLT switched to
>> r6rs, wouldn't it be perfect to have similar library adoption process
>> for r6rs PLT libs ?
> 
> I don't think that taking extensions from PLT or other implementations
> and declaring them a standard will work. 

Sorry, wasn't clear. I mean that some boost libraries can become 
proposals/drafts for the next c++ standard. From this point of view,
boost libs are similar to scheme SRFIs and python PEPs.
Boost libraries should pass aggressive adoption process which is 
comparable to Scheme evolution process but takes less time.

Anyway the only relation of boost libs to standard is a good quality of 
libraries which is tempting for a c++ standard committee.

> C++ is not a language known
> for its elegance but Scheme (at least R5RS-Scheme) is. 

C++ elegance doesn't matter here, right ?

>Sure, I'm all
> for making Scheme a more practical language but then, I wouldn't want
> Scheme to become an cleaned-up clone of Common Lisp. 

Is there any reason for your "wouldn't want" ? What is wrong with CL?
What is wrong from cleaning up and reusing CL experience ?
Why you think that i'm trying to make Scheme CL clone?

> CL has its use,
> Scheme does too and shouldn't be a Lisp-1 version of CL.

The main problem is that Scheme is used mainly for research & study.
I don't like this. I can see a lot of practical real-life unique 
applications for Scheme. This forces me to hope that the diversity of 
Scheme implementations will be somehow centralized around r6rs.

<snip>

--
Bohdan