<div dir="ltr">Hi Da Gamer:<div><br></div><div style> I understood you to be asking an engineering question and let me try to answer it that way. No. No chance. Why? Because something like 15 years of solid engineering effort have gone into the implementation of the runtime system and so changing it in a fundamental way like that would likely introduce significant instability and for little value (both understood as relative terms here). As always, such questions are best understood as questions of "how much time do I have to put in and what will I get out of it" and, in those terms, it seems hard to justify throwing away any significant chunk of that 15 years. (Note that we have attempted something like that 5 or so years ago with rebuilding on top of CLR and it failed for these kinds of reasons).</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Robby</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Da Gamer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:game_beta2003@yahoo.com" target="_blank">game_beta2003@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" style="font:inherit">I'm not sure if you misread my question, but I'll reclarify what I said.<br>
<br>First, I know that Racket is its own language. <br><br>Second, I'm not talking about R6RS. I was talking about <u><b>R<font color="#ff0000">7</font>RS</b></u> small and large.<br><br>Third, as someone who hasn't been in the Racket community long but knows that it is a Scheme variant, I don't see why there is an issue of asking such a question. Is there any need to be defensive and hostile? I can't see the idea being that outrageous, untenable, or completely unnecessary. <br>
<br>Fourth, I said "in the future". As in has there been any thoughts on it. If yes and there was a decision not to go that route, then why not share why? Point out pros and cons, etc. <br><br>In short, I don't need see why my question was taken as an "attack" on the language not as user's/student's
curiosity.<br><br>--- On <b>Sun, 2/10/13, Michael Wilber <i><<a href="mailto:mwilber@uccs.edu" target="_blank">mwilber@uccs.edu</a>></i></b> wrote:<br><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid rgb(16,16,255);margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px">
<br>From: Michael Wilber <<a href="mailto:mwilber@uccs.edu" target="_blank">mwilber@uccs.edu</a>><br>Subject: Re: [racket] R7RS and Racket in the (far) future<br>To: "Da Gamer" <<a href="mailto:game_beta2003@yahoo.com" target="_blank">game_beta2003@yahoo.com</a>>, <a href="mailto:users@racket-lang.org" target="_blank">users@racket-lang.org</a><br>
Date: Sunday, February 10, 2013, 12:13 AM<div><div class="h5"><br><br><div>(disclaimer: i'm just a user; what i say doesn't reflect the rest of the<br>community)<br><br>"Racket" is a programming language lab. Both RxRS, and the rest of the<br>
"separate Racket language" that you allude to, are built on top of it,<br>not the other way around.<br><br>What would be the advantage of being built on top of R6RS? What you're<br>proposing seems like just a semantic change to me. If it's because<br>
you're uncomfortable about Racket "messing with the standard", I really<br>recommend
that you take a look at this thread from last year and the<br>related messages:<br><a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045448.html" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045448.html</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045448.html" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/2011-May/045448.html</a><br><br>As Neil Van Dyke wrote,<br> "When industry people come from other languages to look at Racket,<br>
they've already placed Racket in their conceptual framework, where<br> "standard" is heavily loaded. So, when these people read in Wikipedia<br> and memetic descendants of Wikipedia that R6RS is the "standard", even<br>
though I think R6RS should be shot in the gut and left in a ditch to die<br> painfully, people naturally assume that R6RS is the obvious way to
go.<br> "Use non-standard?! Get back from me, you satan!"<br><br> So they spend the weekend trying to do something in R6RS, stumbling over<br> little headaches doing that in Racket, ask questions, and are suspicious<br>
when Racket people try to tell them to just do things in a non-R6RS way<br> that sounds like sneaky "proprietary non-standard extensions lock-in<br> bad-engineering" salesmanship. In a day or two, they've lost interest<br>
or written off "Scheme", and they move on to the next interesting thing<br> to look at."<br><br><br><br><br><br>Da Gamer <<a href="http://mc/compose?to=game_beta2003@yahoo.com" target="_blank">game_beta2003@yahoo.com</a>> writes:<br>
> 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.<br>> ____________________<br>> Racket Users list:<br>> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a><br>
</div></div></div></blockquote></td></tr></tbody></table><br>____________________<br>
Racket Users list:<br>
<a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>