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

Geoffrey S. Knauth wrote:
<snip>
> The Microsoft analogy is weakened by the fact that PLT is free software,
> so anyone who wants to grab ideas from PLT's excellent developers can
> take what they like and develop such a competitor.  PLT has not
> constrained anyone, so it strikes me as unbalanced to try to constrain
> PLT.  

Again, choosing between r6rs portability and PLT power *is* constraint.
Portability *is* requirement when I'm going to create some real-world 
(non-research, non-study and not a game) software.

> I'm guessing that PLT goes beyond R6RS because they have so many
> ideas they want to explore, and as people say often, "it's a free
> country."  

True, but wouldn't it be better to add all new ideas as R6RS core 
extensions and R6RS compatible libraries?
IMHO in this case PLT & R6RS will benefit from each other.

> PLT is so rich with fresh thoughts (every week!) the only
> reason I don't encourage them more is I hope they get some sleep.

I'm 99% sure they will have more time to sleep after switching PLT
to r6rs ... because of community size increase.

> PLT went to great lengths to support R6RS, so it seems to me they've
> done their bit.  If there's something lacking technically in PLT's R6RS
> support, what is it?  

No AFAIK, but there are a lot of technically lacking things in r6rs 
standard. Actually r6rs is not very useful on practice.

> If we want all the wonderfulness of DrScheme in a
> pure R6RS flavor and we want them to do the work, we could raise money
> for PLT research groups and support the next generation of gifted
> computer scientists.

100%. But not until Scheme becomes software industry language.
Currently it is only very nice and powerful toy.

--
Bohdan