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

On Nov 18, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:

> As the naming conventions in DrScheme suggest, we consider
> our Module language the primary development vehicle. R6RS,
> like R5RS, is supported and available. Bug reports and
> feature requests are taken seriously. As Robby indicates,
> R6RS is our bridge to other Scheme implementations and we
> would like libraries to flow into our world. -- Matthias

The problem is that the PLT tools, libraries, environment and  
documentation in effect, if not intention, encourage people to write  
modules using the PLT Scheme dialect, rather than portable R6RS  
libraries, since the PLT dialect is better supported.

Anything which discourages people from making the effort to port  
libraries to R6RS, or write new libraries in R6RS, serves to undermine  
R6RS.

Now, I can understand that the status quo may be in the best interest  
of the PLT team and community and that you don't have much incentive  
to encourage people to write code which is not dependent on the PLT  
system.  I'll also appreciate that the PLT team does research on  
programming languages and needs to experiment with new ideas.

Presumably what needs to happen for R6RS to succeed is for one or more  
R6RS implementations to become competive with PLT and begin to attract  
users away from PLT, on their own merits.   I don't suppose we can  
expect the PLT team to take the lead on this.


Tom Gordon