Racket Compiler and Runtime Status
blog.racket-lang.org
Racket Compiler and Runtime Status
1–10 of 102 posts
Re: Racket Compiler and Runtime Status
#2If HN ends up moving to the CS runtime I'd love to hear a high level summary of what work it required and how the new runtime performs.
Re: Racket Compiler and Runtime Status
#3[deleted]
Re: Racket Compiler and Runtime Status
#4I'm glad Racket CS happened(even though I don't use Racket), because I was worried about the future of chezscheme's maintenance. It's a runtime with good portability(Guile Scheme, for instance, seems to pretend Windows doesn't exist), and I think it'd be a shame to see it fade away in the future.
Re: Racket Compiler and Runtime Status
#5I used Racket in an intro to CS course a few years ago and was told it’s designed to be a teaching language. Is there any reason to use racket over a more popular functional language? Does anyone use it in production?
Re: Racket Compiler and Runtime Status
#6Interesting I was just looking at the Chez Scheme backends and didn't remember seeing aarch64, just 32 bit arm. And then I found this
https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme/issues/545
Racket-Chez is different from Cisco-Chez by > 600 commits. I wonder what the plan is to normalize them or will be Racket-Chez be our new house.
Re: Racket Compiler and Runtime Status
#7I used Racket in an intro to CS course a few years ago and was told it’s designed to be a teaching language. Is there any reason to use racket over a more popular functional language? Does anyone use it in production?
The Racket distribution comes with several languages.
You were probably using the socalled teaching languages, which are small subsets of real Racket. Using a subset of the real language allows better and more beginner friendly error messages.
The real Racket language is a general purpose language with all the bells and whistles you could ever imagine.
Re: Racket Compiler and Runtime Status
#8I am interested in LISP-type languages, but I have a serious case of decision paralysis.
GNU Guile? Common Lisp? Clojure (JVM)? Racket? Judging by my understanding of the difference between Common Lisp and Scheme, I think I am more of a Scheme type (I prefer C over C++, I like Go more than Java, etc).
Re: Racket Compiler and Runtime Status
#9I am interested in LISP-type languages, but I have a serious case of decision paralysis. GNU Guile? Common Lisp? Clojure (JVM)? Racket? Judging by my understanding of the difference between Common Lisp and Scheme, I think I am more of a Scheme type (I prefer C over C++, I like Go more than Java, etc).
Racket if you're interested in a more "pure" lisp and/or metaprogramming/DSLs.
Clojure if you're looking to use the language directly to solve your problems (and my preferred Lisp).
Re: Racket Compiler and Runtime Status
#10I am interested in LISP-type languages, but I have a serious case of decision paralysis. GNU Guile? Common Lisp? Clojure (JVM)? Racket? Judging by my understanding of the difference between Common Lisp and Scheme, I think I am more of a Scheme type (I prefer C over C++, I like Go more than Java, etc).
If you want live image reloading stick to a Lisp like SBCL rather than Scheme.
If you care about startup times or FFI then don't pick Clojure.
YMMV between Racket and Guile; I would say Racket is better insofar as the culture of documentation is really very good.
In practice, once you learn a Lisp, you can jump between them without too much trouble.