Re: Spec vs code, user-driven vs designer-driven Lassi Kortela 03 May 2021 09:49 UTC
Thanks for commenting, Faré! > This is the approach used by Gerbil Scheme, that is a monorepo of > plenty of libraries on top of a Racket-like module system on top of > Gambit Scheme (but has been retargeted in the past and could be > retargeted again), and to a point used by my Gerbil-Utils which is a > set of more experimental extensions to Gerbil, that I use a staging > area before inclusion to Gerbil itself (when, in my copious free time, > I can get the stuff documented). Since you don't mention any problems with the monorepo approach I assume it has been a success. If that's the case, it's good to have validation. > A lot of things could be done to make Gerbil nicer, more portable, > more coherent, etc.—but it's a great starting point. Like Racket, Gerbil adds quite a bit to standard Scheme. How much of the current Gerbil libs would run on standard Scheme (R6RS and/or R7RS) and would Gerbil users be interested in collaborating on a standard Scheme library collection? I have a strong interest in all the interfaces being portable to every reasonably featureful Scheme that wants them, and so far others feel similarly. The code itself can be cond-expand'ed as needed.