[plt-scheme] Re: PLT R6RS questions and answers

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 5:20 AM, Tom Gordon
<thomas.gordon at fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> Here you've lost me.  Isn't code written specifically for PLT almost by
> definition not portable?   At least a significant manual effort is required
> to port the code.  Are you suggesting it is no more difficult to port

Hi Tom, others,

I'm not a member of the PLT team, and even I'm starting to tire of
R6RS discussions on the PLT list. Especially because they are not
discussions of features or things that should be, but come across...
more negatively.

Without implementations like PLT actively exploring the language, new
features in the spec will never come to be. Someone must explore
beyond what is, and help us understand what should be.

PLT, like all other major implementations, supports R6RS. Matthew
Flatt, who makes a lot of magic happen in the PLT Scheme
implementation, was part of the standards committee. Claiming that PLT
Scheme is ignoring or working against the standards process is like
claiming... oh, mercy. It must be 6:30 AM. This is silly.

In the spirit of "The Little Schemer," "Go eat some turkey!" At least,
that's what many people in the US do today. If you are a vegetarian,
than a peanut butter and jelly sandwich will do. And, if you live in a
part of the world where that is completely foreign, just enjoy a
coffee with a friend sometime today. And be glad that there is a
large, vital Scheme community to have these disagreements...

Cheers,
Matt