Alex Queiroz <asandroq@gmail.com> writes:

> Hallo,
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jim Wise <jwise@draga.com> wrote:
>>
>> It also seems to me that once you strike Schemes with no recent history
>> of being updated *at all* from the list of implementations, the majority
>> of implementations *did* adopt R6RS, so I'm not sure what "disastrous"
>> means, either.
>>
>
> It's not only about the number of implementations, but the number of
> users as well. Strike Chicken and Gambit, and you lose a lot of them.

Or, put differently, as polite as it is to list them all, there are
major implementations and minor ones.   Of the major players, I see:

      Racket -- R6RS optional

      Gambit -- R5RS standard

      Chicken -- "Most of R5RS"

      Chez -- R6RS standard

      Guile -- "mostly implements R6RS"

as driving a lot of Scheme's usage and, probably, development today.
I'd *guess* that these five, in roughly that order, comprise a largish
majority of scheme users today -- even if most of us here cut our teeth
on implementations like MIT Scheme, SCM, and Scheme48 which are no
longer being updated or -- mostly -- used.

Does this sound right?  Am I missing a big chunk of the market?  Is it
too gauche (ooh, I missed another one!) to say that some implementations
matter more than others in talking about whether standards have been
widely adopted?

--
				Jim Wise
				jwise@draga.com

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports