William D Clinger scripsit: > To what extent does the push to add new procedures > to the R6RS, including procedures that are simple > compositions of other R6RS procedures, derive from > fear that these procedures would be too slow if > Scheme programmers were to write them themselves > or to use a portable reference implementation?
Speed's only one such factor: convenience is another, correctness (it's hard to roll your own and get all the details right, like with hash tables) a third, and the correctness of larger programs (the motive for Common Lisp's ENDP) a fourth. > In other words, how much of the growing size of > the R6RS can be blamed on the Scheme community's > habit of using interpreters instead of compilers? Is that really true? -- If you understand, John Cowan things are just as they are; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan if you do not understand, [EMAIL PROTECTED] things are just as they are. _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list r6rs-discuss@lists.r6rs.org http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
