Short: What I am trying to say is that after R6RS, we moved on from Scheme. Don't expect us to support it, don't expect us to stand it its way. We are moving in an orthogonal direction.
Long: We appreciate "small kernel" language and we inherited this from Scheme. We do not appreciate it "keep the language small, even at the cost of not being able to support the construction of large projects easily." Certain degrees of safety and security, certain partial abstraction layers, certain fundamental language mechanisms are essential to us. That, and the idea that batteries are included in a useful manner. We wish our implementation were smaller. One day we will have a small one. No, I can't tell you it's easy to embed Racket in an Android app but I am certain that if you call for help on this list, someone will help. Or perhaps several people. But it won't be tat small. Tony GJ, for example, had real trouble running Racket on a Linksys router a couple of years back and these things run Linux. Then again, phones are larger than routers ;-) -- Matthias On Jun 11, 2015, at 7:48 PM, John Carmack wrote: > I appreciate the position, but I do think there is still value in being able > to optionally carve off all the extra goodness and act like a more primitive > Scheme to provide compatibility with various embedded options where full > Racket isn’t practical. > > DrRacket is a key element of my strategy here – a cross platform IDE with > brace matching, syntax highlighting, and a debugger makes Scheme a reasonable > choice for an extension language. I think I can evangelize this in a way > that wouldn’t be possible if users’ first experience was poking at code in > Notepad. > > If anyone wants to tell me “Racket is easy to embed in an Android app!” I > would love to hear it, but I’m a little too intimidated to have a crack at it > myself, versus Chibi or various other small Schemes that are just a few files > of C code. > > > From: Matthias Felleisen [mailto:matth...@ccs.neu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 7:05 PM > To: John Carmack > Cc: Racket Users > Subject: Re: [racket-users] Racket modules in R6RS? > > > Let me rephrase Matthew. Racket is only related to Scheme. See > http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html for an explanation of our move. Our > understanding is that the Scheme community wants to move back to a world > where the language is small while Racket wants to move to a world where > programmers can easily create programs. -- Matthias > > > > > > On Jun 11, 2015, at 3:22 PM, John Carmack wrote: > > > How do you include a racket module in an R6RS program? > > I have remote.rkt in the same directory as test.scm. > > With R5RS I could do (#%require "remote.rkt"), but that doesn’t work, and I > tried various things in the (import) statement without success. > > Are there any plans for an R7RS lang in Racket? I am trying to write code > that runs in both DrRacket and Chibi scheme. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
