

Scheme Steering Committee Position Statement - fogus
http://scheme-reports.org/2009/position-statement.html

======
blasdel
Small: <http://scheme-reports.org/2009/working-group-1-charter.html>

Large: <http://scheme-reports.org/2009/working-group-2-charter.html>

------
jimbokun
If the charter for the "large language" was replaced with "create a Standard
Library for Scheme," would it make any practical difference?

In other words, does the "large language" really require any different
language _features_ , or just the libraries that "large" Scheme
implementations should implement?

~~~
btilly
From the statement it looks like they want the "large language" to standardize
"the module language, exception system, s-expression grammar, etc." That would
give a standard target for libraries to target, which would make it easier to
write libraries and applications that are portable across different popular
versions of Scheme.

Good luck, but I confidently predict failure. Lisp attracts language
perfectionists, and then differing opinions among perfectionists about what is
perfect results in fragmentation. People who are not language perfectionists
are more likely to be satisfied with a popular language with glaring
deficiencies but lots of reasonably well implemented libraries. Which in my
opinion describes the comparison languages in that statement, namely Perl,
Python, C, and Ruby.

------
fogus
'Scheme should designate two separate but compatible languages: "small" and
"large" Scheme'

Agreed.

~~~
dkarl
What are the advantages? They don't cite any, but I can see two:

1\. Hobbyist implementors can implement "small scheme," so "large scheme" can
be expanded with more difficult-to-implement features without ruining the
classic educational experience of implementing Scheme.

2\. Technical purists who want to use _only their favorite_ module system,
exception system, etc. can build their systems on top of "small scheme," so
they won't hold the development of "large scheme" hostage or try to fragment
the "large scheme" community.

Any others?

~~~
gchpaco
In theory if you're running on an embedded system you can have Scheme without
the libraries--much like embedded C, which was C without the standard
libraries, something blessed by the standard. But the ones you cite,
especially #2, strike me as the most important.

------
andreyf
How are monolithic steering committees no better than at creating technology
than centralized economies at manufacturing widgets? Why do we keep paying
attention to this crap?

