[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Scheme-reports] Ratification vote for R7RS-small

Full name :  Emmanuel Medernach

Location :  France

Statement of interest :

I first learned  about Scheme because I was  (and still are)
dissatisfied with  mainstream languages.  Many  of them feel
to me as convoluted  hack, making ideas laborious or verbose
to express  and making people  think coding is  mainly about
tinker   instead  of  thinker.    On  the   contrary  Scheme
immediately  strucked me  because of  both its  elegance and
expressiveness.  I  then carry on reading  the famous Lambda
papers (and  some other papers from  the readscheme website)
which were enligthening and great readings.

So Scheme is  my language of choice for  expressing my ideas
and fast  prototyping them.  And  even if in some  project I
cannot use it as  it deserved to be (my job is  to work as a
computer research engineer in  physics lab), I try to follow
its philosophy each time I could.

Vote: yes


- Does it satisfy the requirements of the WG1 charter ?

I believe the followings are true:
 "Facilitate sharing of Scheme code"
 "Intended for use in education, programming-language research, etc."
 "Easy to learn and understand"
 "Mostly compatible, and comparable in size, with R5RS."

About the library decisions, I think that removing
versioning and phasing from WG1 was a "necessary" step to
have a simpler module system. The module system was chosen
to be static which make it a good base for language

About the error system decision IMHO the main R6RS issue was
to write in stone an arbitrary condition hierarchy, which
were incompatible with everything existing at that time and
thus too early to standardize.

About the record system decision, IMHO the R6RS one feels
like a "least common multiple" approach was taken instead of
a "orthogonal concept decomposition".  I am convinced that
Scheme needs diversity (of record system for instance)
instead of unification.

- My view about the work of Working Group 1

We had to deal with a  sensitive subjet as to find a balance
between     existing     implementation    practices     and
standardization  effort.  Concessions were  inevitables.  As
such I think the voting process has been a success as we all
had the  opportunity to express opinions and  to read others
point of view, which is interesting and enriching.

Of course I have a list of issues: I am not quite happy with
the  interaction   between  exception  system   and  dynamic
wind/continuations  (somewhere something orthogonal  must be
missing).  I strived for removal of the dreaded "unspecified
value" in  favor of  allowing no value  to be  returned, but
without success for now.  I view making SRFI-9 "The One True
Scheme Record" as  a bad decision, I admit  it is widespread
and should  have been standardized but as  a module instead.
I  dislike  having  parameters  inside  the  core  language:
however convenient there are I think promoting them is a bad

But all in all I am very satisfied with the outcome and want
to give  thanks to all  participants for their  work and

Emmanuel Medernach
Scheme-reports mailing list