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

Folks,

Could those of you posting to it kindly state what it is you *want*?

If there is a specific platform that *you use* and would like to see a
port to, please name it.  (We're aware of cell phones and already have
a working preliminary compiler, with work actively under way, so you
can skip that.)

If there is a specific R6RS primitive missing, please *name it*.

If it's that you are trying to program exclusively in R6RS and are
being forced to use features not in it, please explain why.

If it is the long-term survivability of your code, I think we've seen
several responses to that already.

Beyond that, this thread baffles me.

In the past 7 years, I've advised the students who made three
significant PLT code base efforts: the Web infrastructure, FrTime, and
some aspects of debugging.  (That's not even counting applications
like Continue or XeLda, or frameworks like DrOCaml.)  None of these
would have been possible, at least in their present form, in R6RS
alone.  What would you like us to have done?  Not written them at all?

At least from some of you (perhaps only one of you), the
disappointment seems to be that all the modules in DrScheme weren't
immediately rewritten to be in R6RS.  Would you like to volunteer to
rewrite them (and how will you rewrite the numerous ones that use
features not in R6RS)?  And if not, who do you expect to do it?

R6RS has already seen lots of contribution from PLT folks, at least a
proportional amount.  We're not out to sabotage the process.  But we
also have to balance our expectations for R6RS with our personal
desire to make progress.

Shriram