[plt-scheme] Scheme Steering Committee Position Statement

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Noel Welsh<noelwelsh at gmail.com> wrote:

> If you can't standardise such a basic thing, what exactly is the point
> of a standard? This is the bit I don't get about the "small language"
> argument. If you're going to define a standard so anemic that all
> practical implementations are forced to implement multiple
> incompatible features, what exactly does a standard get you? Any
> moderate sized program won't be portable under this standard (and this
> is exactly the situation with R5RS) so why bother?

The point is: Either the ``pet implementations'' die or they agree on
some ``standard way'' for stuff like FFI or whatever.The point is:
Either the ``pet implementations'' die or they agree on some
``standard way'' for stuff like FFI or whatever.

Define ``moderate sized program.'' Which features would
implementations have to agree on to all support such a program?

>
> Scheme suffers from too many talented programmers reimplementing the
> same stuff in their own pet implementation. We need fewer
> implementations not more. That situation doesn't seem to hurt, e.g.,
> Haskell.

Haskell is great, but it's not Scheme. Fewer implementations would
only work well if people found them flexible enough to support their
desired platforms and programming styles. A larger community-developed
implementation could probably help out a lot. I still want Haskell on
my cell phone and that old BeOS workstation :-)