On 8/17/07, Ivan Raikov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > The language is massively fragmented already, so this is nothing new. > > > > Well, a few of the people who voted yes on the R6RS proposal seemed > to believe that the new standard will bring about better compatibility > between existing implementations. My point was that you cannot alter > the existing state of Scheme by the sheer force of willpower.
And what would? Money? > I most certainly do not consider ISO C or C++ to be good language > standards. In my opinion, a programming language standard should > encourage and support the proliferation of high-quality > implementations. Gee money and commercial interest are the dominant factors here. I guess Scheme sucks. > Compare with C++: despite the thousands of pages of > specification, I am not convinced that you can find two different C++ > compilers that implement all features of the language in the same > way. Coming from a Schemer? Pot. Kettle. Black. Cheers, Brandon Van Every _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
