[gambit-list] Minimalism vs batteries included (Was: Reflection on the suitability of ...)

Adrien Piérard pierarda at iro.umontreal.ca
Tue Jun 14 06:24:11 EDT 2011

2011/6/14 Per Eckerdal <per.eckerdal at gmail.com>:

> [many interesting things]

Now that I know scheme somehow enough, I decided to use Gambit to get
things done, instead of another implementation.
I am fairly happy with the way Gambit respects the reports and SRFIs,
and wish not to change implementation.

I would not mind at all Gambit going batteries included, and even not
being the perfect gem that some people look for or try to craft during
their whole life. I'd rather have an implement that is imperfect and
that evolves. I do believe that this is a good thing in this
situation, as I am not considering a random language, but a Scheme
implementation from someone who has managed to build a very good
system that is faithful to its Scheme roots.

Even though I do not see Scheme, the language, become a batteries
included language, I think that Gambit, the implementation, may very
Still, I would wait a little bit to see what R7RS has to offer in
terms of API and design.
Hopefully, it will be accepted by the community, and be used long
enough so that Gambit can become a wonderful batteries included
dialect of R7RS.



Français, English, 日本語, 한국어

More information about the Gambit-list mailing list