Re: Libraries and repositories

[Paul Prescod <address@hidden>]

Tony Kimball wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> Gosling's language is practically irreproducible.  As a result, it
> represents a single unified target platform.  As a result, it is
> feasible to assemble a large library of utilities and systems built
> on top of that platform.

Gosling's language specifies a large library that you MUST implement.
That's what allows you to assemble a large library of third-party
utilies and systems on top of the platform (but not a CPAN equivalent
yet).

>...
> The language is trivially reproducible.  As a result, it represents a
> vast array of divergent platforms.  As a result it is infeasible to
> assemble a large library of utilities and systems built on top of that
> platform.

If R5RS Scheme had a sister standard that specified as large and rich a
standard library as Java's API, it would not matter that there were a
hundred implementations. They would be alike in every way that mattered.

There are two major and a few more minor implementations of Python but
they are highly similar because compatibility is a primary goal. The
same goes for Java. The same would go for Perl. The same does go for
Scheme -- as far as the Scheme specification goes. But it doesn't go far
enough for practical, business-oriented code to be portable between
implementations.

 Paul Prescod