>>15
Do we really need a portable scheme?
Yes. There should at least be a proper ordering of language features so that the more minimal implementations are proper subsets and completely compatible with the larger ones. And every implementation should have the exact same syntax for a single module system. Granted it's hard to do this when one scheme implementation compiles to c and doesn't support eval, while another scheme implementation compiles to javascript and has no concept of modules, and another has continuations but no big nums, and another has big nums but no continuations, etc.
I just use Racket anyway!
Racket is shit.