RE: Cookbook release

Noel wrote:
> > emphasizing SRFIs where possible doesn't make the
> > Cookbook any more friendly to other implementations.
>
> I would hope it still has some use, but this isn't worth
> arguing over.

Oh, I think it definitely has some use.  But I think we're more likely to
turn people off if we imply that the Cookbook is more agnostic than it
really is (at the moment).

> Well some might argue that other reactions are more
> appropriate to Taylor's comments but that is beside the
> point.

Taylor has a unique way of building consensus. ;)  But Felix's reaction
wasn't that different, although he'd previously seen the Cookbook.  After a
while, I think it was Taylor who came back on #scheme and said something
like "oh, so the cookbook is really PLT-specific".  I think we can shortcut
the learning curve on that point.

> I think we need gratuitous PLTness -- it is one of our
> aims.

That's fine.  But just being picky, point #1 on BeingPltSpecific is "Avoid
_totally_ gratuitous PLT-isms".  All I'm really saying is that we need to be
consistent and clear about what's expected in terms of contributions, to
avoid unnecessary squabbling; and be realistic about how we promote the
Cookbook.

For example, the opening paragraph on BeingPltSpecific reads "our primary
goal is to provide information to users of PLT Scheme".  That's clear
enough.  I think I originally wrote some conflicting text on WebHome, which
currently reads "It is focused on PLT Scheme, although other Scheme dialects
are supported as far as possible".  I'll change the latter, since we don't
really have a way to support other Scheme dialects at present.

> I would like to support all Scheme systems in the distant
> future.  I can imagine a system where you have a recipe and
> multiple implementations in various Scheme language, and
> user preferences control which implementation is shown.
> This would be nice but doesn't seem easy.

I'll write up my ideas along these lines.  Selecting which implementation's
source code snippets is shown may actually not be that hard (the hard part
would be making sure every implementation actually had its own source code
snippet for every case necessary).  Switching the source code is not the
only issue, though.

> Moshi seems a better platform for this stuff.  I'll be
> working on it in the near future so hopefully this
> vapour will solidify soon.

I'd love to see that.  I've toyed with the idea of doing some coding myself.
I'm not sure I'm realistically going to be able to follow through on that,
though.  I can definitely contribute plenty of ideas... ;)

Anton



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=5047&alloc_id=10808&op=click