[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: (#F v. ()) v. Standardization
>>From: Carsten Bormann <cabo%TUB.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
>>As a prospective user of Scheme, I'm feeling extremely uncomfortable
>>with a standards committee that uses its own indecisiveness as an
>>excuse for forcing extensive hidden costs on its customers.
Perhaps this is an indication that it is inadvisable to attempt to
over-standardize a language...that is, while there are still
experimentors actively experimenting with the language. I see two
ways to resolve this. Stop attempting to standardize experiment-
relevant language features, or stop doing experiments using the
language. As a hacker rather than a bureaucrat, my sentiments lay
with the former option.
Why can't the standards committee just leave the issue fuzzy while the
R^NRS mailing list settles on a well-reasoned solution? Certainly,
such a trivial matter cannot keep reasonable people awake at night?
And certainly there are other things on your agenda besides this
P.S. There, is that equally as inflamatory as the comment which
inspired a reply? Or should I add something like ``I used to
say that prospective Scheme users wanted a language that does the
right thing, but if they would rather we standardize haphazardly,
then I will have to stop saying that.''