Full name: Jay Sulzberger
Statement of interest: My Lisp is the Lisp of the LISP 1.5
Programmer's Manual. But I have used various Schemes for more
than twenty years. Recently I read a short piece by a physicist
on why they use Scheme: because they can remember the syntax and
enough standard names so they can just program. My most recent
regular job is writing "Perl scripts", which scripts are written
in Scheme, to help analyze corpora of various half artificial
languages. I hope that Scheme will continue to be popular, and
it is popular, even if it is not used by so many people as use C
or Python. I think having a good standard is of use in persuading
people to try Scheme. I am of the Minimalist Party, and I hope
that a future standard will be have at least three parts. There
should be a Scheme Kernel, then a Scheme Small, and then a Scheme
Large. And I am for the Scheme Kernel having some primitives to
help with probabilistic and concurrent and parallel programs. So
my hoped for Scheme Kernel would be, along some dimensions,
smaller than r7rs Small, but, along other dimensions, larger.
Vote : yes
Rationale: I have not read carefully the entire r7rs Small, draft
9. I have read many of the comments on the mailing list, and I
have read the votes. On the exact definitions of the library
system and the exception system, I defer to the opinions of
Scheme folk who understand these things. I agree with the three
arguments-in-the-large in support of this draft: first, r7rs Small is
small, second, some things beyond r5rs will help in getting more
people to try Scheme, and third, r7rs is a proposed standard for
an old, well known, and much loved, programming system, and so, if
we are to have a new standard, not every bit can be made perfect
in the eyes of all.
I remain, as ever, your fellow student of history and probability,
Jay Sulzberger.
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
