Re: Making SRFI go faster Amirouche Boubekki 25 Apr 2021 11:04 UTC
Le dim. 25 avr. 2021 à 11:57, Lassi Kortela <email@example.com> a écrit : > > Thanks for the feedback! > > > Isn't "just contributing to a Scheme system" or "writing a library for > > snow-fort/akku.scm" essentially the "lightweight design process"? Publishing a Scheme project is always helpful. It is also useful to publish a project in whatever programming language, that others might use as inspiration for their own work. My goal is to make contributions *more* easy, and in particular more portable across Scheme implementations. That is in line with the scheme report goals. > Nope, those are missing the social element which is the main ingredient. > Everyone going off to write their own library is how the worldwide Lisp > and Scheme communities have done design work until now (save for SRFI, > RnRS, and the Common Lisp standard). This has gone on for 3-4 decades > and empirically, those libraries don't convergence into one cohesive > collection. Many in the CL community would like to refresh the CL > standard but it doesn't work out because they're missing the right > social process. > > > Especially if you want to permit mistakes/erroneous decisions? > > Yes, this is one of the key points. > This is not forbidden by the SRFI process to amend with PFN a SRFI, or supersede with another SRFI. The problem I see with R7RS is there is no standard test suite outside Chibi, which requires an advanced implementation to make it run. The SRFI process has no dedicated Scheme implementation officially, Chibi will not be the best choice for the long term. > > Isn't that basically "I develop things as a library, people try it, test > > it, decide that it is not worth, and port their programs away from > > relying on it"? > > The key is collective ownership I agree.