[plt-scheme] Scheme Steering Committee Position Statement

From: namekuseijin (namekuseijin at gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 21 14:53:55 EDT 2009

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:17 PM, David Van Horn<dvanhorn at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> Sam TH wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:18 PM, Eduardo Bellani<ebellani at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> http://scheme-reports.org/2009/position-statement.html
>>> Any comments?
>> I'm disappointed that people think that a Scheme that works well for
>> education and research can't be the same as one that works well for
>> writing large-scale programs.  I think the existence of PLT Scheme, in
>> which large quantities of all three are done, is an existence proof of
>> the opposite.
> Agreed.
> I also think the large v. small language is a false dichotomy.  If you want
> to write a module (library) using nothing but lambda and apply, you can do
> that in R6RS.

Yes, with a mere (import (rnrs base)) it provides an even smaller
subset than R5RS.

All batteries-included Scheme implementations provide pretty much
everything a programmer needs for real world tasks.  I just wish all
of them provided at least one common interface for such features as
IPC, FFI etc, beside their specific.  That's where I see
standardization efforts could focus instead of relying on people
possibly agreeing upon one or other SRFIs and hopefully providing

my 1 cent...

Posted on the users mailing list.