[plt-scheme] Scheme Steering Committee Position Statement

From: Doug Williams (m.douglas.williams at gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 21 13:08:31 EDT 2009

It's rather hard to complain about a position statement. It is their

I do that they succinctly stated the problem that we all went through during
the R6RS process - there are basically two camps with divergent goals in
terms of Scheme as a 'programming' language. The ones favoring the 'small'
language concept have an advantage - there is less to argue about in a
smaller language definition (and that language has been relatively stable).
The ones favoring a 'large' language [and I am definitely in that camp] are
at a disadvantage in that there are several Scheme implementations (and
there adherents) that solved the same problems in often (or even usually)
incompatible ways. The differing majorities required for ratification of the
two 'languages' seems like a good methodology to approach.

I am hoping R7RS gets the 'large' language back into a common fold and allow
us to start writing truly portable Scheme applications.  I wish them well
and would like to support the process in any way that helps.


On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 10:18 AM, Eduardo Bellani <ebellani at gmail.com>wrote:

> http://scheme-reports.org/2009/position-statement.html
> Any comments?
> --
> Eduardo Bellani
> www.cnxs.com.br
> Someone once called me "just a dreamer"
> That offended me, the "just" part.
> Being a dreamer is hard work.
> It really gets hard when you start believing in your dreams.
> --Doug Engelbart
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20090821/a706b5e7/attachment.html>

Posted on the users mailing list.