Re: Duplication of effort.

From: Harvey J. Stein <>
Date: 06 Oct 1998 21:23:41 +0200

"Perry E. Metzger" <> writes:

> "Harvey J. Stein" writes:
> > My question to this
> > view is if this is the case then why are there so many different C
> > compilers/Fortran compilers/...?
> 1) to some extent, there is only one C compiler left in the open
> source community, and it is GCC.

You mean egcs? :-)

There have been many C compilers, and there have been a few free
ones. Free ones is a more recent phenomena.

> 2) C code from different compilers mix just fine. Scheme is so loosely
> defined except at its very core that this isn't possible in our
> world. Furthermore, things like foreign function interfaces and large
> packages like the STk Tk functionality can't be ported easily.

So, what's missing is a standard that's sufficiently rich to allow
good work to be done in a C/unix/windows centric world. The issue
isn't proliferation of incompatible implementations. The issue is
sufficiently rich standards.

> > 3. Put your money where your mouth is.
> >
> > If you think it's a good idea to merge Scheme implementations, then do
> > it! Why argue about it on the net? Or is the idea to try to convince
> > developers to do the work for you?
> I could do a "merge" myself, but the result would be three schemes
> instead of two. Without the cooperation of the STk and Guile
> communities, what would the point be?

May the best implementation win. You might get some cooperation in
advance by argument/discussion, but it'd be misplaced. The real
cooperation would come when you start integrating patches from people
who downloaded your first cut.

Harvey J. Stein
BFM Financial Research
Received on Tue Oct 06 1998 - 21:24:15 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Jul 21 2014 - 19:38:59 CEST