11–20 of 75 posts
Is it just me or did anyone else feel he was talking about Racket? I have never understood why Racket doesnt get the love that it deserves.
(No seriously, he described Go)
Is it just me or did anyone else feel he was talking about Racket? I have never understood why Racket doesnt get the love that it deserves.
Is it just me or did anyone else feel he was talking about Go? I have never understood why Go doesnt get the love that it deserves. (No seriously, he described Go)
Actually, its Go's standard packages which matches most of these expectations.
Is it just me or did anyone else feel he was talking about Racket? I have never understood why Racket doesnt get the love that it deserves.
Is it just me or did anyone else feel he was talking about Go? I have never understood why Go doesnt get the love that it deserves. (No seriously, he described Go)
I think Go's just still too immature for most people to invest deeply in. Production code can have a lifespan measured in years or even decades, so you want to use a language that's stable and mature, and you want to know that it's going to be around at least as long as your application. Things will change once the 1.0 Stable release rolls around, and people will really start dipping their feet in (and those people who have been dipping their feet might take a dive).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it just me or did anyone else feel he was talking about Go? I have never understood why Go doesnt get the love that it deserves. (No seriously, he described Go)
I also had the same weird feeling (see my post elsewhere in the thread). I think Go's just still too immature for most people to invest deeply in. Production code can have a lifespan measured in years or even decades, so you want to use a language that's stable and mature, and you want to know that it's going to be around at least as long as your application. Things will change once the 1.0 Stable release rolls aroun…
Go 1 should solve most of the big problems, currently libraries need to keep up with weekly releases and packages are still being moved around.
Is it just me or did anyone else feel he was talking about Racket? I have never understood why Racket doesnt get the love that it deserves.
Is it just me or did anyone else feel he was talking about Go? I have never understood why Go doesnt get the love that it deserves. (No seriously, he described Go)
Homoiconic
Code can be manipulated as data.
Extensible syntax
I find I don't use macros much anymore. I do more with data-oriented programming. But it is nice to have when you need it.
Is it just me or did anyone else feel he was talking about Racket? I have never understood why Racket doesnt get the love that it deserves.
Is it just me or did anyone else feel he was talking about Go? I have never understood why Go doesnt get the love that it deserves. (No seriously, he described Go)
I don't think Go matches all his criteria, though. For instance, Go is not homoiconic.
Wrong: first item should be environments as first class types. Much of the rest follows. And you can stick it to smarmy common lisp geeks.
Is it just me or did anyone else feel he was talking about Racket? I have never understood why Racket doesnt get the love that it deserves.
* Racket doesn't meaningfully have a good syntax for literal maps or sets
* Racket doesn't have math-oriented types, AFAIK, even in Typed Racket
* Racket doesn't have units.
* Racket doesn't have aspects (you can obviously add them--see Swindle--
but Swindle is very rare these days, and not the preferred way to write
Racket
* Racket is not interface-based (ditto)
* Racket *supports* immutable values, but mutable (via define) seems more common.
The MLs or Clojure seem a lot closer here.
* Racket is arguably not polymorphic. I'm aware you can do weird stuff by
playing with a bunch of hidden parameters on structures, but the description
sounds a lot closer to OCaml functors to me. (And look no further than
how Racket has for/list, for/hash, for/gvector, etc., for a harsh example of the
limits of that polymorphism.)