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

On Nov 24, Robby Findler wrote:
> Folks,
> 
>   At the risk of repeating myself, core PLT members have put in a
> huge amount of effort into R6RS already. I think it is time to stop
> telling us how more would be better and instead step up and
> contribute.

I want to add one more point that for some reason was not mentioned so
far.  It's an obvious one, really: PLT Scheme is a ... [dramatic
drum-roll effect] ... *HUGE* system.

Just look through the collection tree, and you'll see that there are
many modules that are still in the `mzscheme' language (which has been
a legacy language for about a year now), you'll see many units that
are not using the features that the unit system provie because they
predate the module system (which has been around for 7 years), you'll
see files that use the `class100' object system which is even older
than that, and you'll even see a compatibility module for zodiac which
is even older.

The bottom line is that there's plenty of code, and far from enough
people to port it all.  Sure, you may play with the idea of porting
things here and there, but these things would be painful -- and on the
other hand, the people who are working on the project have very little
motivation in spending yet more effort in making code portable accross
implementations for obvious reasons.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                  http://www.barzilay.org/                 Maze is Life!