Am 08.07.2011 11:47, schrieb Alaric Snell-Pym: > On 07/07/11 18:52, John Cowan wrote: > >> As I've pointed out before, application programmers don't really need to >> make their code portable between Schemes any more, because each Scheme >> (with a very few exceptions) is itself highly portable. It's library >> programmers that really need and benefit from standardization. > > +1 > > An app that doesn't use any non-portable features (GUIs? Means of > packaging apps for distribution, even?) is often rather boring.
OK, this is getting somewhat off-topic, but I felt the need to reply. GUIs are not inherently unportable. In fact, if there were something like a portable FFI (which, e.g., Common Lisp has with CFFI), it would be no problem to write a wrapper for something like GTK+ or wxWindows that is portable among implementations (at least the one that don't run on non-C platforms such as .NET or the JVM) and base your app on that. So I don't see why portable applications should be necessarily "boring". To be honest, Scheme is one of the few languages I know in which you have to tie yourself so intimately with one single implementation to write any serious applications. I mean, how often do you write, say, a C++ implementation that only works with the Wacom C++ compiler? I find it a bit sad that there are such a wealth of Scheme implementations, but such little ground for actually sharing Scheme code, especially for things that need interaction with native libraries. Regards, Denis Washington _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
