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

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 07:21:12AM -0500, Geoffrey S. Knauth wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Aziz,
> 
> 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.

If the reason they write them in nonR6RS PLT is that they use libraries 
not available in R6R6, then having those libraries (re)written in R6RS 
would promote portability.

-- hendrik