Racket v6.6 • Hacker News Board

Re: Racket v6.6

#21

Post by JayHost » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 5:59 PM UTC

csl wrote: post #17

rayalez wrote: post #2

John Carmack once said that he is developing VRScript based on racket. Does anyone know if there's any news regarding it's development?

I emailed him in December, asking about the possibility to cross-reference VRscript snippets like you can with HTML and JavaScript. He replied he was hoping to take it in "a URI like direction", but that there was a "significant security review that needs to go on".

Right, the last I heard he shifted focus to Minecraft VR I believe and I haven't looked into it since then.

However, You can embed Racket in the Native C SDK examples if that's what you're looking for..

Re: Racket v6.6

#22

Post by cossatot » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 6:00 PM UTC

wcrichton wrote: post #13

Typed Racket is gradually typed, right? Does anyone have an example of a Typed Racket application that uses both static and dynamic typing effectively?

Matthew Butterick uses both in his typesetting applications: http://unitscale.com/mb/technique/dual-typed-untyped-library...

Re: Racket v6.6

#23

Post by hellofunk » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 7:32 PM UTC

jhck wrote: post #6

hellofunk wrote: post #4

I see that static typing is become a high priority development goal now, even in traditionally dynamic lisps. I see this as a positive for sure.

Matthias Felleisen, one of the developers of Racket, recently gave a talk about the motivation behind typed Racket; it can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTl7Jn_kmio

Excellent talk. Nice to see it a Clojure conference. The points near the end about contracts vs. types was enlightening.

Re: Racket v6.6

#24

Post by juliangamble » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 10:29 PM UTC

Some interesting reading on Dependent Types in Typed Racket: http://cs.stackexchange.com/a/41538/1709

Re: Racket v6.6

#25

Post by sdegutis » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 1:43 AM UTC

xedrac wrote: post #15

Of all the lisps, Racket appeals to me the most. It lacks the many warts that common lisp has, and has a very clean feel to it. I had tremendous fun solving problems on Project Euler and Rosetta Code using Racket. I highly recommend it for anyone even remotely interested in learing a lisp.

Why Racket rather than Clojure? I'm surprised.

Re: Racket v6.6

#26

Post by dschiptsov » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 5:41 AM UTC

reikonomusha wrote: post #20

dschiptsov wrote: post #7

It seems that Racket became for Schemes what Common Lisp was for Lisps, which is really good. Racket is famous for carefully chosen design decisions and nerdy attention to details, so in this sense it is much better than Common Lisp which was a dump.)

In what way was Common Lisp a "dump"?

Obviously by incorporating many pieces from various dialects without proper, careful unification in naming, ordering of arguments, eliminating redundancy, etc.

The examples of good care taken are library/base of Haskell (they really do rewrite core libraries when they have implemented a better idiom) and stdlib of Erlang and Racket.

Re: Racket v6.6

#27

Post by dschiptsov » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 5:46 AM UTC

gongador wrote: post #19

dschiptsov wrote: post #7

It seems that Racket became for Schemes what Common Lisp was for Lisps, which is really good. Racket is famous for carefully chosen design decisions and nerdy attention to details, so in this sense it is much better than Common Lisp which was a dump.)

In my opinion, it is Common Lisp that is famous for carefully chosen design decisions and nerdy attention to details, given the situation and the constraints (Darpa saying 'fix the situation or we cut funding', and lots of implementors anxious to push /their/ way.) Sure, everything isn't "just right" (e.g. READ-FROM-STRING, no 'parse-number'), but that's a universal problem.

Look at my comment below.

Re: Racket v6.6

#28

Post by dschiptsov » Mon, Jul 25, 2016, 5:50 AM UTC

richard_todd wrote: post #10

dschiptsov wrote: post #7

It seems that Racket became for Schemes what Common Lisp was for Lisps, which is really good. Racket is famous for carefully chosen design decisions and nerdy attention to details, so in this sense it is much better than Common Lisp which was a dump.)

I'm not really sure what you mean, but I don't see it. Racket did not develop a new standard that pulled together common practices across existing Scheme implementations, and other implementations did not adapt racket compatibility features, nor did additional racket implementations pop up. Racket does not appear to have supplanted use of other scheme implementations either. So, I'm looking for the analogy, but I'm n…

Yeah, this analogy isn't perfect. The idea is that they are trying to collect and unify the best idioms and utilities from the Scheme world while continuing to develop their own packages.