Scheme language standardization process
On 05/14/2014 01:37 PM, Andy Wingo wrote: > Anyway more to the point, I don't care enough to overcome my gripes with > the process. I don't think that the R7RS process is good for language > design or specification. I'm reasonably content with how R7RS-small turned out. It's a good size, and a sane/coherent updating of R5RS and (a trimming-down of) R6RS, though of course we can quibble about various issues. I'm more nervous about R7RS-large. I'm OK with the concept of a larger language, but it's hard to grow a larger language "by committee". There is something to be said for either a "benevolent dictator" or a small committee of experts. Voting on features by the community at large (i.e. anyone who cares to vote) does not seem the way to design R7RS-large. I think it's fine to do a poll to get a sense of the community, but it should never be deciding. I don't know what the solution is. It is possible that R7RS-large is too ambitious, at least for the Scheme community. Perhaps we should aim for a more modest r7.1rs with a few optional additions. Perhaps every other year we could have a new 7.x point release with some modules we can take more time to get consensus for. Instead focusing on features perhaps it is more important to find a standards language and framework for optional features and modules. -- --Per Bothner per@x http://per.bothner.com/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports