News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Cyclone Scheme. Parent comment

Re:Cyclone Scheme by hajile on Tuesday October 06, 2020 @11:12AM (#24698497)
They've been working on r7rs-large for at least 7 years and last I looked had less than 20 SRFI approved. I know they do it on their free time, so no gripes about them. The point is that at the current rate, I'll be retiring before they finish.

r7rs-large also doesn't fix issues where some SRFI must be in the r7rs-small spec to ensure cross-implementation compatibility. They need a r7rs-standard which adds these features over the minimalist r7rs-small while retaining r7rs-large as additional libraries.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Cyclone Scheme by slaymaker1907 on Tuesday October 06, 2020 @04:14PM (#24701856)
I think in general R7RS-large is supposed to be what mainline implementations implement with R7RS-small mainly being for implementations used for embedding scheme as part of a larger application (and even then you might still use large) as well as for experimental/hobbyist implementations.

Particularly if you are just using scheme as a scripting language which mostly calls out to C, it doesn't necessarily make a bunch of sense to include complex features like reflection or weak boxes. Such an implementation might not even have a GC in the first place and just rely on the scheme process ending to release memory back to the OS.

[ Parent | on HN ]