Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Racket – Lisp beyond Clojure

slides.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 179 posts

Re: Racket – Lisp beyond Clojure

#4

Post by macco »

noobermin wrote: post #2

I'd think Common Lisp is the Lisp beyond Clojure. Also, I just see slides that have (googleable) terms, is there a recording of this presentation? EDIT: see mkozlows' comment (THANKS!!!)

I think, it is more of a timeline, than what is better/more powerful.

Re: Racket – Lisp beyond Clojure

#5

Post by noobermin »

duaneb wrote: post #3
noobermin wrote: post #2

I'd think Common Lisp is the Lisp beyond Clojure. Also, I just see slides that have (googleable) terms, is there a recording of this presentation? EDIT: see mkozlows' comment (THANKS!!!)

Who said there was only one?

Sure, there doesn't need to be only one. If one is more widely known it's common lisp.

Re: Racket – Lisp beyond Clojure

#7

Post by duaneb »

noobermin wrote: post #5
duaneb wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said there was only one?

Sure, there doesn't need to be only one. If one is more widely known it's common lisp.

I'm not so sure anymore. Scheme is at least taught in schools and isn't uncommon as a scripting language. Where are you likely to run into Common Lisp?

Re: Racket – Lisp beyond Clojure

#8

Post by sdegutis »

duaneb wrote: post #7
noobermin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, there doesn't need to be only one. If one is more widely known it's common lisp.

I'm not so sure anymore. Scheme is at least taught in schools and isn't uncommon as a scripting language. Where are you likely to run into Common Lisp?

For me it was the Practical Common Lisp book.

Re: Racket – Lisp beyond Clojure

#9

Post by jonathonf »

chriswarbo wrote: post #6

I've recently started porting some bash scripts over to Racket, using https://docs.racket-lang.org/shell-pipeline and it's been pretty straightforward and painless so far!

Are there (m)any advantages to doing this? I've seen a number of shell-interop modules for various languages but they all appear to add an extra layer that reduces portability or ease of maintenance.
Post reply on HN