121–130 of 138 posts
It seems like a bad idea to use the same “where” syntax for definitions and test cases, especially since a major aim of this is education.
My criticism is that this language is very similar to Python and might very well confuse students who ultimately have to switch to Python or other languages.
> # this is true > ((1 / 3) * 3) == 1 This is a slippery slope. Early versions of Dart tried to use rational numbers by default, but then it was cancelled because denominator size can grow exponentially. Also, I seriously doubt you can make a language that will correctly resolve checks like this one: sin(pi / 6) == 1 / 2
Trying to simplify this by removing any stage doesn't really work. sin() over a rational should be a compile time error.
I wish there were an Emacs mode published on MELPA, to work with Pyret
> # this is true > ((1 / 3) * 3) == 1 This is a slippery slope. Early versions of Dart tried to use rational numbers by default, but then it was cancelled because denominator size can grow exponentially. Also, I seriously doubt you can make a language that will correctly resolve checks like this one: sin(pi / 6) == 1 / 2
The number stack goes like this: naturals -> integers -> rationals -> reals. Trying to simplify this by removing any stage doesn't really work. sin() over a rational should be a compile time error.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Knowing who they are, I would happily assume that they spent plenty of time debating this exact issue of mixing kebab case with infix subtraction, and either decided the benefits were worth the cost or else decided that the cost was practically nonexistent. We don't need to assume when we can search. I did a few minutes of searching and found the following: https://groups.google.com/g/pyret-discuss/c/rPe7gYBLdPs/m/…
It only makes more sense when you do look at the background, so thanks for the link. They're lisp folks. They use kebab-case. I completely get it. It may be the product of decades of research, but it is also the product of default choices and comfort for the people who wrote it. ALL programs have an element of this: I write Rust and you can tell without looking when some tool is written in it -- TOML config? Apache-2…
If not, this does:
$ cp a-b c-d # copy a-b file to c-d
$ expr 1-1
1-1
$ expr 1 - 1
0
What pain point of Python as an education language is Pyret trying to address? Union type might be vaguely useful, although some of these use cases can be modelled as inheritance or typed enums.
I was excited that Pyret, which I was previously familiar with as a Racket #lang, had evidently gained enough independence to warrant its own website that does not even mention Racket. What a vindication of the #lang system! Then I read this: "Ultimately, Racket’s #lang facilities, though designed to create new languages—and a great prototyping ground for Pyret—proved to not be quite enough to support a language crea…
I don't see the lack of a JavaScript-backend as failure of the language building facilities of Racket. In fact, the ability to quickly build a new language in Racket, made it possible to try out different features quickly. Also, it made bootstrapping possible.