[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: De Facto Standards -- Revised straw proposal for heuristic info
> 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
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.