On 8/14/07, Bill Richter richter@math.northwestern.edu wrote:
In-reply-to: 5747EF6C-7E8E-4491-ADAB-C5E9170B7777@iro.umontreal.ca (message from Marc Feeley on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:57:52 -0400) But Bigloo, Chicken, Gambit, ELK, MIT-scheme, SCM and STklos will almost certainly not adopt R6RS.
Marc, can you give us some more context here?
Those implementors have more or less declared R6RS as being something they really don;t like. You can also certainly add Stalin to the list.
Are there any fast Scheme compilers that will adopt R6RS?
I'd call Larceny a strong maybe, but I am no spokesman for that project. Andre VanTonder's compatibility package supposedly provides neraly full R^(5.97)RS compatibility already and is bundled with (and easily patched into as updates to the R5.97 lib are made) Larceny.
On that note, I noticed that Andre's latest release claims to be bootstrappable on any R5RS system. Has anyone tried it in a recent Gambit beta?
Is there a split between the serious computations folks like you on one side? I don't know who I'd put on the other side, the egg-headed theoreticians maybe :)
There is a split, and it's been around for a while. It's fundamentally much more psychological than technical, IMO. I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss it, but I wouldn't be too surprised if there was also a strong age correlation with the faction boundaries :)
How did the R6RS come to embrace feature-creep?
Because work always fills up to include all available brain-cycles :)
david rush