| 1 |
Just a pipe in from a non-dev, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
The name "dev-scheme" seems to me to be a little bad mainly |
| 4 |
because the word scheme is now used so frequently in or as |
| 5 |
part of the name of applications today. A freshmeat search |
| 6 |
turned up 136 projects with scheme attached to it (wasn't |
| 7 |
logged though so maybe this is lower with some filtering). |
| 8 |
I've honestly never heard of "Scheme" before now so I did a |
| 9 |
little googling. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
While my initial google search enlightened me a little more |
| 12 |
on what "Scheme" you are referring to (search turned up the |
| 13 |
following, Scheme is a statically scoped and properly |
| 14 |
tail-recursive dialect of the Lisp programming language |
| 15 |
invented by Guy Lewis Steele Jr. and Gerald Jay Sussman). |
| 16 |
Because this lists "Scheme" as a dialect of lisp rather than |
| 17 |
a completely separate language and add to that the confusion |
| 18 |
that may arise with the usage of the word scheme in |
| 19 |
applications today. I would argue there is a pretty good |
| 20 |
reason to keep any "Scheme" interpreters in lisp even if it |
| 21 |
is rather tedious. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Just my 2 cents, |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Blake Matheny wrote: |
| 26 |
> I know this is policy, but in the case where there are several interpreters |
| 27 |
> available (such is the case of Scheme), might it be more reasonable to put a |
| 28 |
> popular interpreter in dev-lang, and the rest into dev-scheme? This should |
| 29 |
> keep clutter in dev-lang to a minimum, and still allow users to easily browse |
| 30 |
> by their preferred language. What is the thought here? |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> -Blake |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives