hjstein_at_bfr.co.il (Harvey J. Stein) writes:
> So, what's missing is a standard that's sufficiently rich to allow
> good work to be done in a C/unix/windows centric world. The issue
> isn't proliferation of incompatible implementations. The issue is
> sufficiently rich standards.
Actually, I agree with you, Harvey, on this point. It would be great
if there was a standards document describing extensions to scheme,
that addressed system interaction issues.
scsh and efforts like it can help here. That's why I'm (slowly)
working on scsh for guile.
> May the best implementation win. You might get some cooperation in
> advance by argument/discussion, but it'd be misplaced. The real
> cooperation would come when you start integrating patches from
> people who downloaded your first cut.
I still think you are suggesting that people re-implement the same set
of features in multiple scheme implementations, just so that at some
future time, one will distinguish itself, and we'll end up using that
one. This sounds like duplicated work to me.
Why isn't it easier to just plug the wanted features into a single
implementation? A lot fewer scheme-hacker-hours will be spent, with a
more useful product at the end.
I'm repeating myself now, and I think I have made my point clearly,
but I would just like to say that you have not addressed this point.
Is the only reason you think that the implementations should remain
separate is that guile currently has warts?
-Russ
--
Why be difficult when, with a bit of effort, you could be impossible?
Received on Wed Oct 07 1998 - 00:07:55 CEST