[racket] R7RS and Racket in the (far) future

From: Michael Wilber (mwilber at uccs.edu)
Date: Sun Feb 10 00:13:20 EST 2013

(disclaimer: i'm just a user; what i say doesn't reflect the rest of the

"Racket" is a programming language lab. Both RxRS, and the rest of the
"separate Racket language" that you allude to, are built on top of it,
not the other way around.

What would be the advantage of being built on top of R6RS? What you're
proposing seems like just a semantic change to me. If it's because
you're uncomfortable about Racket "messing with the standard", I really
recommend that you take a look at this thread from last year and the
related messages:

As Neil Van Dyke wrote,
   "When industry people come from other languages to look at Racket,
    they've already placed Racket in their conceptual framework, where
    "standard" is heavily loaded.  So, when these people read in Wikipedia
    and memetic descendants of Wikipedia that R6RS is the "standard", even
    though I think R6RS should be shot in the gut and left in a ditch to die
    painfully, people naturally assume that R6RS is the obvious way to go.
    "Use non-standard?!  Get back from me, you satan!"

    So they spend the weekend trying to do something in R6RS, stumbling over
    little headaches doing that in Racket, ask questions, and are suspicious
    when Racket people try to tell them to just do things in a non-R6RS way
    that sounds like sneaky "proprietary non-standard extensions lock-in
    bad-engineering" salesmanship.  In a day or two, they've lost interest
    or written off "Scheme", and they move on to the next interesting thing
    to look at."

Da Gamer <game_beta2003 at yahoo.com> writes:
> I was wondering if Racket at any point in the future will be libraries built from or on top of R7RS small and big proper (or any future standard RxRS really).  As opposed to being its own language.
> ____________________
>   Racket Users list:
>   http://lists.racket-lang.org/users

Posted on the users mailing list.