Re: De Facto Standards -- Revised straw proposal for heuristic info

[Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk>]

> In comp.lang.scheme, which is considerably more diverse than
> rrrs-authors, there have been many messages to the effect that
> implementors need to get off their duffs and do something about
>
>   *  standard interface(s) to other languages, primarily C and C++
>   *  standard interfaces to several of the most
>        popular OS and GUI libraries
>   *  standard libraries

Etc.

And *  a standard way of defining records (BTW and which is mentioned
       later though not in the itemized list)

But I wouldn't say that the desire, in Comp.lang.scheme, is
specifically for implementors to do something, though obviously
implementors have to be involved at some point.

>   *  debugging
>   *  standalone applications
>   *  performance
>   *  memory requirements
> 
> Apart from the standard libraries' need for some kind of module
> facility and for some way to generate new disjoint types, these
> issues have little to do with the language standard.

Well, all of the one with "standard" in them look like they have
something to do with the labguage standard(s).

> I believe most users would be happy to learn that implementors are
> talking to each other in an effort to improve the portability and
> usefulness of Scheme.  In fact, I think most users would be appalled
> by the opposition to this that some R*RS authors have expressed.

So far as i can tell, they would be just as happy for implementors,
RnRS authors, experienced users, etc, to be talking to each other,
probably even happier.

-- jd