Am Mo., 5. Dez. 2022 um 14:31 Uhr schrieb elf <xxxxxx@ephemeral.net>:

[...]

> > Why do people keep saying I claim to represent a consensus of schemers?
> > Scheme rarely has a consensus on anything.
>
> I disagree strongly with this sentiment. Scheme has a consensus on
> _most_ things, and the parts that were thrown through by a vote, against
> the wishes of most implementations (eg, R6), did not end up being enduring.

As one of the few who speak up for R6RS on these lists, I would like
to remark that this argument could then also be extended to R7RS
because a great share of the Scheme community that was in favor of
R6RS voted with feet in the R7RS process.  As I see it, both R6RS and
R7RS are enduring and both brought great inventions to the Scheme
process.  None of it was a mistake.  If I could change history, the
only thing I would change would be to base R7RS-small on a subset of
R6RS (which would have been perfectly possible without problems) to
get an equivalent language but without breaking backward
compatibility.

This remark is, of course, totally off-topic (so you can ignore it).

[...]

> Scheme is interesting in that there's the idea of something being
> 'unschemey', and this is a valid form of criticism. One does not say
> 'this is un-C-ey' or 'un-pythony' (at least, not as far as I'm aware).
> That the core language, whatever this means, remains 'schemey' and
> relevant is a primary concern - not whether ideas are proposed quickly
> or slowly.

I think the term "pythonic" is well-established.  However, it may be
more applied to Python code than to the "standard".  But "unschemey"
is also an attribute I apply to Scheme code.

[...]

Marc