Unmaintained implementations
Antero Mejr
(13 May 2024 14:25 UTC)
|
Re: Unmaintained implementations
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 May 2024 14:39 UTC)
|
Re: Unmaintained implementations
Lassi Kortela
(13 May 2024 15:17 UTC)
|
Re: Unmaintained implementations
Lassi Kortela
(13 May 2024 17:46 UTC)
|
Re: Unmaintained implementations
Antero Mejr
(13 May 2024 18:05 UTC)
|
Categorizing and describing implementations
Lassi Kortela
(13 May 2024 18:24 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Jakub T. Jankiewicz
(13 May 2024 20:16 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 May 2024 20:23 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Lassi Kortela
(13 May 2024 20:37 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 May 2024 20:39 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Jakub T. Jankiewicz
(13 May 2024 21:19 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 May 2024 21:26 UTC)
|
Containers
Lassi Kortela
(13 May 2024 21:37 UTC)
|
Re: Containers
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 May 2024 21:41 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
John Cowan
(13 May 2024 21:51 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Stephen De Gabrielle
(14 May 2024 08:23 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Jakub T. Jankiewicz
(14 May 2024 11:55 UTC)
|
Snap and Lisp
Lassi Kortela
(14 May 2024 12:15 UTC)
|
Re: Snap and Lisp
Stephen De Gabrielle
(14 May 2024 12:45 UTC)
|
Re: Snap and Lisp
Lassi Kortela
(14 May 2024 13:33 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Marc Feeley
(14 May 2024 12:48 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Stephen De Gabrielle
(14 May 2024 13:09 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Marc Feeley
(14 May 2024 13:29 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Jakub T. Jankiewicz
(14 May 2024 14:03 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Stephen De Gabrielle
(14 May 2024 17:45 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Lassi Kortela
(19 May 2024 13:47 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Antero Mejr
(20 May 2024 14:03 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations
Arthur A. Gleckler
(20 May 2024 14:24 UTC)
|
Definition of "Scheme"
Lassi Kortela
(14 May 2024 13:21 UTC)
|
Re: Categorizing and describing implementations Jakub T. Jankiewicz (14 May 2024 13:53 UTC)
|
Re: Unmaintained implementations
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 May 2024 19:12 UTC)
|
Re: Unmaintained implementations
Jakub T. Jankiewicz
(13 May 2024 20:40 UTC)
|
Re: Unmaintained implementations
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 May 2024 20:43 UTC)
|
Re: Unmaintained implementations
Lassi Kortela
(13 May 2024 20:49 UTC)
|
Re: Unmaintained implementations
Arthur A. Gleckler
(13 May 2024 20:55 UTC)
|
Re: Unmaintained implementations
Lassi Kortela
(13 May 2024 21:07 UTC)
|
Re: Unmaintained implementations
Antero Mejr
(13 May 2024 21:18 UTC)
|
Metadata files
Lassi Kortela
(13 May 2024 21:34 UTC)
|
Re: Metadata files
Antero Mejr
(13 May 2024 21:41 UTC)
|
On Tue, 14 May 2024 14:48:35 +0200 Marc Feeley <xxxxxx@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > I’m somewhat of a hardliner on the subject of what is required for a system > to qualify as a “Scheme”, which for me means an implementation of the > Scheme language. > > A “Scheme” should be defined as an implementation that conforms to one of > the RnRS reports. Others should qualify as “Scheme subset”, or “Scheme > like” implementations. I think we all agree that small deviations from an > RnRS report are OK. But some features are essential, such as lexical > scoping, proper tail-calls, and continuations. Just having parentheses and > being simple does not qualify as “Scheme”. > > By the way, Ribbit would qualify as a Scheme since it fully conforms to > R4RS. > I have more lax definition of Scheme. If some lisp looks like Scheme, have lexical closure, function as first class objects, closures and a decent amount of procedures from any RnRS I would consider it Scheme. Event if it doesn't have all required features like continuations, TCO, or macros. I would use term, production ready implementation or more mature, for Scheme that are well known like Gambit, Kawa, or Guile. But I would not exclude those small implementations. I was just checking dependants of my library jQuery Terminal on GitHub about this this: https://github.com/trb-a/cumalis-lisp It says Lisp in the name but also implement a lot of features of Scheme, and in summary it says: Cumalis Lisp is a stack-based implementation of R7RS Scheme Language in Typescript. And there are probably hundreds of implementations out there. Since Lisp and Scheme are the easiest programming language to implement (at least on basic level). On GitHub you can find 46 repositories with topic r7rs: https://github.com/topics/r7rs We can link to that from the website and encourage developers to include specific tags on GitHub. Most developers probably don't use topics for their implementations (like Gamibt). R5RS topic: https://github.com/topics/r5rs has only 22 repositories. I can search for implementations on GitHub and suggest to add topic so we will have more implementations. I've just created an issue for Gambit. -- Jakub T. Jankiewicz, Senior Front-End Developer https://jcubic.pl/me https://lips.js.org https://koduj.org