Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> writes: > Erik Naggum <e...@naggum.net> writes:
> > * Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> > > | The question still stands - your main problem with "Scheme freaks" is > > | that they brag at the size of their standard, so, when did it last > > | happen?
> > Do you really expect an answer to this anal-retentive rhetorical > > question?
> I don't see where this question is being either rhetoric, or anal retentive.
How about just "not productive"? Erik is right. It is routine for Scheme people to cite the size of the ANSI CL standard as a negative, and explicitly or implicitly to tout the small size of their document as a model. Not all such encounters occur in referenceable fashion, and it's useless/misleading and bordering on obnoxious and passive aggressive to demand a reference as if the failure to reply with a reference negated the claim.
Erik's dissection of this was on the mark: Even for as large as CL is, no fan of CL would tell you there shouldn't be "more to come" if/when we have the time to do so. By contrast, there are people who suggest that Scheme's small size is a virtue, which works against the Scheme community by failing to standardize common facilities that everyone needs to use. The SRFI process somewhat helps to repair this, but it is not a consensus body standard nor is it sanctioned by the original group of authors. Scheme + other extensions is useful, but it's unfair to "hide" the size of Scheme in this fashion at the same time as criticizing CL for its size.