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

From: Geoffrey S. Knauth (geoff at knauth.org)
Date: Mon Nov 24 07:21:12 EST 2008

On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:00:42 -0500, "Abdulaziz Ghuloum"
<aghuloum at cs.indiana.edu> said:
> I don't think Tom's point was that DrScheme should be
> rewritten such that its code base in pure R6RS.  Tom is
> talking about libraries, modules, or code that people
> actively write specifically for PLT vs. libraries that
> people write for R6RS that can also be used under PLT.


OK, I understand now.  Well, if I were an author of such a library, the
first thing I would have to ask myself is, "Why did I write it for one
platform and not for many?"  Is it out of convenience or aesthetics? 
Then what process could make it easy to write or generate a portable
version?  Is it out of ignorance?  Then users should educate me.  Is it
for technical reasons or a vision thing?  Then users should ask me to
document the issue explaining the divergence.

I'd be happy watching PLT folks go at their own rapid pace, and for
people concerned with (back? forward?) portability make that a separate
effort.  Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.  Count me as
partial to PLT, but still interested in portability.

Geoffrey S. Knauth | http://knauth.org/gsk

Posted on the users mailing list.