Email list hosting service & mailing list manager

Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (01 Dec 2022 22:25 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped John Cowan (02 Dec 2022 12:10 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Marc Feeley (02 Dec 2022 12:16 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 13:24 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 13:37 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (02 Dec 2022 14:58 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 15:10 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (02 Dec 2022 16:24 UTC)
Scheme Review vs. SRFIs John Cowan (03 Dec 2022 22:07 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (03 Dec 2022 22:39 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Arthur A. Gleckler (03 Dec 2022 23:25 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (04 Dec 2022 00:14 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 00:50 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (04 Dec 2022 09:34 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 10:01 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (04 Dec 2022 11:07 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 11:44 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Arthur A. Gleckler (04 Dec 2022 05:15 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Vladimir Nikishkin (04 Dec 2022 06:27 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Arthur A. Gleckler (04 Dec 2022 06:31 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 13:28 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 07:13 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Vladimir Nikishkin (04 Dec 2022 07:28 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (04 Dec 2022 09:40 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 13:16 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 09:41 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Vladimir Nikishkin (04 Dec 2022 10:06 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 10:15 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Vladimir Nikishkin (04 Dec 2022 10:44 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (04 Dec 2022 09:57 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (04 Dec 2022 10:59 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 20:20 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (04 Dec 2022 18:01 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (04 Dec 2022 22:09 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs elf (05 Dec 2022 13:31 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (05 Dec 2022 13:53 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 13:59 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Arvydas Silanskas (05 Dec 2022 16:43 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 17:44 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Arthur A. Gleckler (06 Dec 2022 00:15 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe (05 Dec 2022 18:08 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Lassi Kortela (05 Dec 2022 18:25 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs John Cowan (05 Dec 2022 03:47 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Jakub T. Jankiewicz (02 Dec 2022 18:18 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Arthur A. Gleckler (02 Dec 2022 18:34 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 18:39 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Jakub T. Jankiewicz (02 Dec 2022 18:50 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 21:33 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Jakub T. Jankiewicz (02 Dec 2022 22:16 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (02 Dec 2022 22:34 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Jakub T. Jankiewicz (03 Dec 2022 11:24 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (03 Dec 2022 13:47 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (03 Dec 2022 14:05 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Jakub T. Jankiewicz (03 Dec 2022 15:04 UTC)
Re: Scheme Review bootstrapped Lassi Kortela (03 Dec 2022 15:22 UTC)

Re: Scheme Review vs. SRFIs Vladimir Nikishkin 04 Dec 2022 06:27 UTC

If I may add a few cents as an "outsider".

I have tried to follow the SRFI process attentively for the past 3
years, and I have seen the following:

1. SRFI review process is rigourous. Maybe not always, but certainly
much more rigourous than most of the programming-related discussions
on the internet.
2. SRFIs eventually make it into the implementations. This is a fact.
The phrase "implementation X supports SRFI Y" has a well-defined
sense.
3. Most SRFIs are either unportable or portable with significant effort.
4. SRFIs are "hard". People strive to make them up to the latest
standard in the Scheme-speaking world.
5. SRFIs are first and foremost, focusing on Scheme implementers, not
developers.

SRFIs de facto are "language development bits".

The place for "Scheme Review", as far as I can see, would be the
"portable world".
At the moment, there is really nothing technically stopping people
from writing a lot of useful code in portable Scheme.
(maybe there is no standard for "virtual environments" similar to
python's virtualenv/venv)
But societally, any "guiding process" for helping people go into
writing Scheme code to solve daily tasks is missing.
Okay, not entirely missing, as there are lots of textbooks on Scheme,
but textbooks on Scheme, just as textbooks on C++, are a lonesome
business.

So, Scheme Review, which could be a place where I could upload my code
(to me, at least, it would be nice if on "Scheme Review" code would
matter more than prose), and have it scrutinised by more seasoned
schemers certainly would be nice. Even nicer would be if the "seasoned
schemers" could help packaging that code into a portable-ish library.

Why is Reddit not good for that?
1. Reddit is blocked in half of the world, and is in general a
US-style social network, prone to political process in the US.
2. Reddit has no tools for working with code.

Why is Planet Scheme not good for this?
1. Planet Scheme is one-directional.

Why is Github "scheme-organization" not good for that?
1. Inconvenient interface, generally aimed at achieving a different goal.

I would say, (if I may have the temerity to suggest how someone should
spend their volunteering efforts), that
in order for "Scheme Review" to succeed, it needs to have:
1. A convenient interface. Gitea is a nice start, as it has the tools
to work with code, but maybe some other reviewing software would be
better.
2. A clear social contract. Who is contributing what and getting what
in response. As in 'submitters are getting their code reviewed,
reviewers are getting a chance to improve their guiding skills, as
well as learn new ideas, the community is getting more high-quality
libraries'. Yes, you may have to spend time implementing "badges"
(although, preferably, not StackOverflow style of "points grinding").
2.1. An in-depth tutorial for the really dumb (like me), on how the
process works step by step. In many languages! I am ready to
contribute a Russian, and a Chinese translation, but please, make the
text good. I think we are missing a huge lot of excellent contribution
from outside of the Anglosphere, because we are not catering to
non-native speakers. Make it clear that you are happy to help with
translating their proposals into English, or editing their drafts.
(Which, I can also volunteer to do.)
3. If possible, integration with snow-fort, akku.scm and the github
scheme organisation. Yes, I understand that the output of the review
process might not necessarily be a library, but I would still
recommend aiming low first, with the perspective of growing high
later.
4. Social work. This point may be not as fundamental as the first
three, but just announcing something and proposing a single document
for discussion is not really enough. Try to understand who are the
people who might contribute to the process, both as reviewers, and as
submitters, and contact them personally. This might even sound
sinister, but make a list of people who, you suspect, might have
something useful for the common cause and try to reach out to them
personally. Maybe that is not going to be needed forever, but would
help with the bootstrap.

If anything, you can try to distinguish between the Review and the
SRFI process as the opposition between the MIT and the Berkeley
approaches. "Make good from the start" is good for the most
foundational level of the ecosystem (i.e. the Scheme Systems, Scheme
Base, if you wish), or the SRFI level, while "make it just good" would
be the attitude of the Review process.

Again, I am trying not to sound too critical, but the Scheme world has
enough centripetal forces which make the community look like a daisy
with three quarters of the petals dried away. If you want to make it
look like a tree rather than a daisy, you have to make sure that you
are directing at least the interested parts of the community in the
common direction, rather than away from the trunk. If "Scheme Review"
dilutes the SRFI community, it will be a failure. If it collects the
scattered droplets into a joint river, it will be a success.

On Sun, 4 Dec 2022 at 13:15, Arthur A. Gleckler <xxxxxx@speechcode.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 4:14 PM Lassi Kortela <xxxxxx@lassi.io> wrote:
>>
>> > I'd love to hear from an outsider, privately if necessary, about the
>> > "confusion and alienation."  I want to make the process better.
>>
>> It's a general sentiment by many that SRFI is not addressing the acute
>> needs of schemers. "Alienation" taken literally is probably stronger
>> than anyone feels. RnRS causes stronger feelings since it's hard to ignore.
>
>
> I'd like to hear from other outsiders.

--
Yours sincerely, Vladimir Nikishkin
(Sent from GMail web interface.)