Am So., 4. Dez. 2022 um 08:13 Uhr schrieb elf <xxxxxx@ephemeral.net>:

> 2) FFI code is unportable. Whilst working out standards for representation may be useful,
> A) an implementation written in and targeting C (for example) is not going to have a meaningful FFI compatiblity to a native Java (for example) implementation,
> B) the individuality/uniqueness of each implementation may suffer if this becomes too uniform (which would make the entire scheme ecosystem poorer, imho)

The latter point is a very important one and can even be expanded.

The "unportability" of Scheme (outside of the R5RS, R6RS, or R7RS
core) should be interpreted as a good sign.  It means that the Scheme
language is live and that people (users and implementers) are still
experimenting, trying to push the boundaries.  We don't need 30+
implementations if they all basically can do the same.  But we welcome
30+ running experiments.

What can be criticized in my opinion is that Scheme implementations
make it too easy to write non-portable code, some even invite to do
so.