[gambit-list] (no subject)

David Rush kumoyuki at gmail.com
Tue Aug 14 16:33:19 EDT 2007


On 8/14/07, Bill Richter <richter at math.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> In-reply-to: <5747EF6C-7E8E-4491-ADAB-C5E9170B7777 at 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
-- 
Once you label me, you negate me
    - Soren Kierkegaard



More information about the Gambit-list mailing list