Why Racket? Why Lisp? (2014)

#1

Post by dgellow » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 11:57 AM UTC

Why Racket? Why Lisp? (2014)
practicaltypography.com

Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp? (2014)

#2

Post by adregan » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 12:45 PM UTC

Previous discussion can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8206038

Have noticed quite a bit more buzz about Racket and Lisp very recently around here. It's always been something I mean to explore.

Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp? (2014)

#3

Post by Yuioup » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 1:05 PM UTC

adregan wrote: post #2

Previous discussion can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8206038 Have noticed quite a bit more buzz about Racket and Lisp very recently around here. It's always been something I mean to explore.

I think it's because of this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9220468

Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp? (2014)

#4

Post by s_kilk » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 1:13 PM UTC

adregan wrote: post #2

Previous discussion can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8206038 Have noticed quite a bit more buzz about Racket and Lisp very recently around here. It's always been something I mean to explore.

We seem to be on a Racket buzz lately, and I like it. I feel more inspired to dig further into Racket.

I'm already pretty good with Clojure, so can anyone who knows both languages well comment on the ups and downs of learning Racket after learning Clojure?

Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp? (2014)

#5

Post by izietto » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 1:33 PM UTC

I love this site, it's so simple and beautiful

Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp? (2014)

#6

Post by nickbauman » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 1:43 PM UTC

adregan wrote: post #2

Previous discussion can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8206038 Have noticed quite a bit more buzz about Racket and Lisp very recently around here. It's always been something I mean to explore.

I go to my local Clojure meetup. Last time I sat next to a guy who uses Racket in his day job. He said "If I didn't know what the problem was and was asked to pick the language beforehand, I'd pick Racket. I still like Clojure a lot." Didn't get a chance to unpack that with him.

Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp? (2014)

#7

Post by luxbock » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 1:45 PM UTC

s_kilk wrote: post #4

adregan wrote: post #2

Previous discussion can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8206038 Have noticed quite a bit more buzz about Racket and Lisp very recently around here. It's always been something I mean to explore.

We seem to be on a Racket buzz lately, and I like it. I feel more inspired to dig further into Racket. I'm already pretty good with Clojure, so can anyone who knows both languages well comment on the ups and downs of learning Racket after learning Clojure?

This is a blog post by technomancy, the original author of Leiningen, exploring Racket as a new language:

http://technomancy.us/175

EDIT: Wrong link. This one might be interesting as well so I've left it here:

http://technomancy.us/169

Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp? (2014)

#8

Post by leanthonyrn » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 1:56 PM UTC

s_kilk wrote: post #4

adregan wrote: post #2

Previous discussion can be found here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8206038 Have noticed quite a bit more buzz about Racket and Lisp very recently around here. It's always been something I mean to explore.

We seem to be on a Racket buzz lately, and I like it. I feel more inspired to dig further into Racket. I'm already pretty good with Clojure, so can anyone who knows both languages well comment on the ups and downs of learning Racket after learning Clojure?

  Using either still keeps you in the Lisp universe.

Also, Greg Hendershott's rackjure library emulates a few "Clojure-inspired" ideas in Racket https://github.com/greghendershott/rackjure

Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp? (2014)

#9

Post by nickbauman » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

I think the hardest thing for people to get for programming in Lisp is the immutability. Once you get over that hump, everything is downhill. From the outside, the parenthesis seem pedantic but it's completely superficial. You will stop noticing them in a few hours, if not days.

Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp? (2014)

#10

Post by mbrock » Thu, Mar 26, 2015, 2:05 PM UTC

nickbauman wrote: post #9

I think the hardest thing for people to get for programming in Lisp is the immutability. Once you get over that hump, everything is downhill. From the outside, the parenthesis seem pedantic but it's completely superficial. You will stop noticing them in a few hours, if not days.

Are you perhaps coming from a Clojure perspective? Scheme is no more inherently immutable than, say, JavaScript. Many Scheme programs I've seen use mutation quite liberally. Immutability is a useful pattern in lots of languages and situations, but Lisp per se doesn't particularly enforce it.