On Thursday 15 July 2004 21:52, Markus Triska wrote:
> On Thursday 15 July 2004 02:25 pm, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > Another implementation of Scheme? Aren't the ones in:
> > http://www.schemers.org/Documents/FAQ/#implementations
> > enough? Or isn't any of them better suited as a starting point?
> Please ask Tom, not me, because he is doing it, or visit his page for more
Well, the link on http://regexps.srparish.net/www/#pika is broken.
> His version could have advantages that others lack.
> is at most very rarely (never?) a drawback.
Well, too much diversity is not too good. And Scheme suffers from too much
> Besides, I hear some people are
> implementing already available software just to see what it is like. There
> surely are thousands of other legitimate reasons why one would implement
> another version of Scheme.
I did not say they weren't legitimate. Anyone can go and write another editor
or bug tracker or window manager, if he'd like. That's one of the rights that
Liberalism gives you. But if someone wishes to embark on something like that
I'd advise him to contribute to an existing project instead of starting a new
> > Do you mean that you're all the more for Arch to win?
> No, I did not.
> Each of the nominated projects is very good (see Dave's post for some
> details about the GIMP). The Arch - GIMP relation was a joke, if you don't
Ah, sorry. I did not get it at first.
> The fact remains that Tom's Pika Scheme has Unicode support, which
> TinyScheme lacks, so it could be worth a look.
Right. But Pika Scheme is so far not yet ready for prime time. And it is
possible that adding Unicode support for TinyScheme will take faster than it
will take for Pica Scheme to reach its 1.0 release.
Shlomi Fish (who once wrote a specialized program from scratch,
distributed it as open-source and it became quite successful, and had some
> Gimp-developer mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Shlomi Fish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Knuth is not God! It took him two days to build the Roman Empire.
Gimp-developer mailing list