On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:45:35AM +0100, Joerg F. Wittenberger wrote: > Brandon Van Every wrote: > > > Matthew Welland wrote: > > > I'd suggest going one step further and striving to keep the scheme > > > portion not too chicken specific. Other schemes would only have to > > > provide the interface layer and the bulk of the code could be > > > reused. > > > > > > > From a support and community growth standpoint, I see no value in > > projects that try to be all things to all Schemes. Doing things > > well on Chicken is what's important. Also, reuse doesn't mean > > anything without people and interest. > > I'm not sure you are right here, Brandon. The people and interest are > there. Just some of them will not jump on the chicken/gui ship when > it's chicken specific - as they refuse to jump on those other PLT or > whatever specific ships even though they seriously lack an viable > alternative. So adding one more ship will extends the set of options > I'm *not* taking anyway. For me this boild down to accepting strange > restrictions (besides coding R5RS(subset) whenever possible): > [...] > End goal: SRFI, not less! > [...]
I agree with Joerg. Currently I am developing with bigloo and I am looking for a good GUI library to use with it. As I have used Gtk+ before (in OCaml and C), I am just experimenting how would be a bigloo interface to gtk. But I do not think I will use bigloo for all of my Scheme developments. The next project could be in Chicken, for instance. So common libraries to many scheme implementations are valuable to me and I think the Scheme community should put efforts to develop them, when possible. José Romildo _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
