6ferrets (6ferrets) wrote in lisp,

Scheme definition fork

I'm surprised that there's been no comment on the double Scheme announcement from the steering committee.

We believe the diversity of constituencies justifies the design of two separate but compatible languages, which we will (for now) call "small" and "large" Scheme.

Small Scheme

* Constituencies: educators, casual implementors, researchers, embedded languages, "50-page" purists
* Think "IEEE/R5RS brought up to the current date."
* ~ 90% supermajority to be required for final ratification

Large Scheme

* Constituencies: programmers, implementors
* Think "R6RS with a happier outcome."
* ~ 75% supermajority to be required for final ratification

I suggest that "small" and "large" Scheme be named after Sussman (who co-wrote SICP) and Steele (who co-authored the Common Lisp standard) respectively. :-)

(Cross-posted to lisp and schemers)
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.