3 ms·

Many of the last items in the list should be in the category "Scheme". Racket is a dialect from Scheme, but it still is a Scheme. The syntax-case macro transfor

by alvatar 12y ago

Many of the last items in the list should be in the category "Scheme". Racket is a dialect from Scheme, but it still is a Scheme. The syntax-case macro transformations are available in most Scheme systems.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Many of the last items in the list should be in the category "Scheme". Racket is a dialect from Scheme, but it still is a Scheme. The name was changed to Racket from a name with "Scheme" in it because its not a Scheme in the strict sense; Racket does not conform to any of the Scheme reports (though its bundled with language definitions that do, as well as lots of others, but the Racket language, while near Scheme, is not.)
- pflanze 12y ago
  > because its not a Scheme in the strict sense; Racket does not conform to any of the Scheme reports The same could be said for many, if not most "Scheme" implementations. Scheme didn't standardize stronger language abstraction features, otherwise what Racket offers aside its core implementation (unless they would deviate just for the purpose of lock-in) would just be Scheme libraries, and it would be fair to call it "the Racket implementation of the Scheme language, which comes bundled with more involved language libraries than most". From a marketing standpoint, their move is good for them and bad for the Scheme community because they imply that "Scheme" as a brand or community isn't able to support the languages that they are implementing. They may have the finances and manpower to make it work for them, but it leaves out the community from which they have grown. I'm not deep enough inside the community to know all the factors that lead to this but as a fringe participant it seems (more than?) somewhat untruthful and disappointing.
- georgegeorges 12y ago
  > but the Racket language, while near Scheme, is not. You've described 99% of Scheme systems. The only exception I know of is Scheme48, which is pretty much the Third Reich of Scheme systems. Portability between Scheme systems is tedious and, in some cases, close to impossible. Even moreso when you start using some combination of SRFIs.
PuercoPop 12y ago
mutable cons cell by default is a very big departure from the Scheme Standard AFAIU (not that I think it is a bad idea, just not Scheme).

by alvatar 12y ago

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Many of the last items in the list should be in the category "Scheme". Racket is a dialect from Scheme, but it still is a Scheme. The name was changed to Racket from a name with "Scheme" in it because its not a Scheme in the strict sense; Racket does not conform to any of the Scheme reports (though its bundled with language definitions that do, as well as lots of others, but the Racket language, while near Scheme, is not.)

pflanze 12y ago
> because its not a Scheme in the strict sense; Racket does not conform to any of the Scheme reports The same could be said for many, if not most "Scheme" implementations. Scheme didn't standardize stronger language abstraction features, otherwise what Racket offers aside its core implementation (unless they would deviate just for the purpose of lock-in) would just be Scheme libraries, and it would be fair to call it "the Racket implementation of the Scheme language, which comes bundled with more involved language libraries than most". From a marketing standpoint, their move is good for them and bad for the Scheme community because they imply that "Scheme" as a brand or community isn't able to support the languages that they are implementing. They may have the finances and manpower to make it work for them, but it leaves out the community from which they have grown. I'm not deep enough inside the community to know all the factors that lead to this but as a fringe participant it seems (more than?) somewhat untruthful and disappointing.
georgegeorges 12y ago
> but the Racket language, while near Scheme, is not. You've described 99% of Scheme systems. The only exception I know of is Scheme48, which is pretty much the Third Reich of Scheme systems. Portability between Scheme systems is tedious and, in some cases, close to impossible. Even moreso when you start using some combination of SRFIs.

PuercoPop 12y ago

mutable cons cell by default is a very big departure from the Scheme Standard AFAIU (not that I think it is a bad idea, just not Scheme).