Alex Queiroz <asandroq@x> writes:
> Hallo,
>
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 7:31 PM, Jim Wise <jwise@x> 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on implementations like MIT Scheme, SCM, and Scheme48 which are no
longer being updated or -- mostly -- used.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@x
Attachment:
pgpZbiAYKwX7i.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports