[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] Reformulated numeric-tower ballot
- To: scheme-reports@x
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] Reformulated numeric-tower ballot
- From: Per Bothner <per@x>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 16:06:57 -0700
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <20140429034858.GB11962@mercury.ccil.org> <20140429114006.GA10898@frohike.xs4all.nl> <20140429125335.GE11962@mercury.ccil.org> <20140429131315.GB10898@frohike.xs4all.nl> <20140429133459.GI11962@mercury.ccil.org> <20140429135300.GC10898@frohike.xs4all.nl> <20140430160403.GI11962@mercury.ccil.org> <20140501084722.GA1259@frohike.xs4all.nl> <20140501143356.GI26823@mercury.ccil.org> <email@example.com> <20140507230647.GD22201@mercury.ccil.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On 05/14/2014 01:37 PM, Andy Wingo wrote:
> Anyway more to the point, I don't care enough to overcome my gripes with
> the process. I don't think that the R7RS process is good for language
> design or specification.
I'm reasonably content with how R7RS-small turned out. It's a good size,
and a sane/coherent updating of R5RS and (a trimming-down of) R6RS, though
of course we can quibble about various issues.
I'm more nervous about R7RS-large. I'm OK with the concept of a larger language,
but it's hard to grow a larger language "by committee". There is something to
be said for either a "benevolent dictator" or a small committee of experts.
Voting on features by the community at large (i.e. anyone who cares to vote)
does not seem the way to design R7RS-large. I think it's fine to do a poll
to get a sense of the community, but it should never be deciding.
I don't know what the solution is. It is possible that R7RS-large is too
ambitious, at least for the Scheme community. Perhaps we should aim for a
more modest r7.1rs with a few optional additions. Perhaps every other year
we could have a new 7.x point release with some modules we can take more
time to get consensus for. Instead focusing on features perhaps it is
more important to find a standards language and framework for optional
features and modules.
Scheme-reports mailing list