Re: [Chicken-users] which RxRS?

[Giorgio Flaverli]

[ OT: sorry for top-posting, but such are the limitations of this particular webmail. ]

@Ivan: In the OP, the initial question about which RxRS was serious, the rant about R6RS was a semi-troll (though it reiterated points made by none other than Chicken's implementer, right?); CK's R5RS response was helpful to me and possibly future readers. Cowan's response was feeding the troll. (Un)luckily (depending on one's perspective) not enough users joined in the flamewar.

Makes sense? Nods to Alex Q. for figuring out the trolling angle (though as I said it was only semi-so).

If I were to respond to your philosophical point about the higher meaning of mailing lists, I would say that ignoring criticism is very easy in theory and very hard when said criticism is targeted at oneself. IOW, make sure to remember that philosophy next time you feel unfairly criticized. But I won't belabour the point lest I add even more noise to the low amount of signal in this thread, and I advise others to follow my example of restraint :)

Giorgio Flaverli
address@hidden

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Shmakov <address@hidden>
To: chicken-users <address@hidden>
Sent: Wed, Dec 11, 2013 11:48 am
Subject: Re: [Chicken-users] which RxRS?

>>>>> Giorgio Flaverli <address@hidden> writes:

[…]

 > You all could have directed the same criticism to John Cowan's
 > response (*he* reopened the flamewar), right?  I waited for several
 > hours for someone to intervene and nobody did.

	Mailing lists are about helping each other, and /not/ about
	“directing criticism” (whether justified or not; unless it’s in
	some way helpful, that is.)

	Now, could someone please stand up and say if the message being
	discussed was helpful to anybody, and if so, how?  For as for
	me, it surely wasn’t.