Why do so many people like to say that they have written an implementation of the "Scheme" programming language when it turns out that they have not even implemented quasiquotes, hygienic macros, tail call optimizations, first class continuations, etc.? You have implemented a Lisp, not a Scheme! Stop claiming that you have implemented Scheme when you haven't!
We must defend the purity and glory of genuine Scheme implementations against the half-baked implementations of non-Scheme Lisps that wrongfully claim to be Scheme. Long live Scheme! Down with the impostors!
This thread really should be on /prog/. We need to come up with an easy to run testsuite to verify conformance to the standard. Once we have that, we can start going through the fake implementations and raising bug reports about it.
we can start going through the fake implementations and raising bug reports about it
The charlatans are merely going to make cosmetic modifications to their misleading claim. They are going to say that they have implemented a "minimal Scheme", whatever that means. Fools! It is not a "minimal Scheme" if it is not even a Scheme in the first place!
Schemers, unite! Stop your schemy schisms! Scheme is facing its darkest hour. It is being assaulted from all sides. It is up to us to defend the glory of Scheme. The educational establishment is moving away from Scheme. JavaScript has shown its hostility towards Scheme by encroaching upon Scheme's traditional turf. The JavaScripters are now openly challenging Scheme with the release of the despicable JSCIP "textbook" which they are relying on to dump Scheme into the dustbin of history. We have no room for fake "Scheme" implementations that give a bad name to the genuine implementations. The peddlers of fake "Scheme" implementations are the enemies of Scheme!
It does not matter since most ``Scheme programmers'' do not actually know Scheme, they only know the limited subsets used in SICP, or even worse, the Little Schemer.
Redefine "Scheme" to adjust to the common features of all those implementations.
>>5
The programming language used in SICP is not Scheme. It is a dialect of Lisp that should be named "SICP LISP".
The convoluted style of JavaScript programming used in JSICP should be named "JabbaShit". JSICP is despicable for two reasons: its rejection of Scheme, and its JabbaShit.
switch to a haskell based linux software instead
Rewrite the linux kernel in haskell
>>8-9
Only freedom haters would embrace Haskell. Why do you want to be enslaved to a monopolistic Britisher implementation (GHC)?
becuz this dub is mono
>>11
Stereo please
>>10
What manner of strawman are you constructing here? There is no enslavement or monopoly in GHC.
>>10
You forget that that "monopolistic" lacks "poli".
>>10
The question is: why did Haskellers manage to unite and rally around a single implementation, while Schemers remain as divided as ever? Schemers must unite for the benefit of humankind!
Haskell has anti-spam filters with a linux based os that supports java on a ubuntu platform.
>>15 why indeed, what are the legitimate reasons that schemers have to stay separate? understanding this, one might better see how to improve the way things are
>>17
There are no legitimate reasons for the schisms in Scheme. The inferior programming languages have always feared the latent power of Scheme, leading them to collude with each other to keep Scheme divided and weak.
one might better see how to improve the way things are
Schemers must use the same dirty tactics used by other programming language communities. We must establish the Scheme Intelligence Service and an external propaganda department.
Rust programmers keep bullying their detractors out of business: https://drewdevault.com/2022/05/30/bleh.html
Should Scheme programmers do the same?
>>19
This is just a single dirty sheep in a herd of marketers.
Market scheme to an Eskimo, flip it quickly like a flap jack
flip this dub
>>2
We could start with the low hanging fruit. If a "Scheme" implementation does not have call/cc, it is definitely not a Scheme. We need volunteers to open bug reports for these counterfeit "Scheme" implementations on GitHub. There are too many of these fake "Scheme" implementations written by smug weenies who think they know all about Scheme just because they have implemented a non-Scheme.
>>23
What is R4RS?
>>23
call/cc is considered harmful: https://okmij.org/ftp/continuations/against-callcc.html
Scheme considered harmful