Re: Scheme Implementers

[Noah Lavine]

Hello,

> What tends to happen is that people that want to do this consider
> themselves Scheme programmers, first and foremost, and who do not
> identify themselves with one Scheme system; so they release their code
> on their own site, with info on using it with various systems, and send
> mails to the various implementation user lists.
>
> But it's rare for an implementer to be in this category.  People who
> have the luxury of an implementation, if it's big enough, don't appear
> to _need_ standardization so much, so they don't work on it.

Thanks for this reply. That makes sense.

> Scheme is fairly polychromatic right now, culturally.  You might find it
> useful to interact with the various lists individually, and then come
> back and work on this.  Otherwise you won't really know where people are
> coming from.
>
> For example, if you are interested in cooperation with Racket, the (very
> smart and experienced) Racket people will tell you their view of the
> world straight-up on their mailing lists, but are probably tired of
> getting into arguments with other worldviews on more general fora.
> Likewise you'd need something in R6RS for R6RS schemes.  Et cetera.
>
> I don't mean to discourage more inter-Scheme cooperation.  I like Scheme
> folks and Scheme implementations.  I even like Racket :)  I just mean to
> say that it's not just space, or lack thereof, that is a barrier to
> cooperation, it's culture.  Successful cooperation is diplomacy, in the
> best sense of the word.

Thanks, this makes a lot more sense to me. I might get in touch with
Racket or some other Schemes once the parser is far enough along to be
used.

Noah