A(nother) cool thing about Racket is that they use GNU Lightning for JITing. Not only is the generated code decently fast, but the actual JITing is very fast. Last time I looked, the runtime compilation was considerably faster than LLVM. It matters more than you'd think.
Racket v6.6
11–20 of 28 posts
Re: Racket v6.6
#12It seems that Racket became for Schemes what Common Lisp was for Lisps, which is really good. Racket is famous for carefully chosen design decisions and nerdy attention to details, so in this sense it is much better than Common Lisp which was a dump.)
I'm not really sure what you mean, but I don't see it. Racket did not develop a new standard that pulled together common practices across existing Scheme implementations, and other implementations did not adapt racket compatibility features, nor did additional racket implementations pop up. Racket does not appear to have supplanted use of other scheme implementations either. So, I'm looking for the analogy, but I'm n…
The analogy breaks down in quite a few places. In addition to the ones you mentioned, there are no multiple implementations of Racket.
That said, there is a similarity (and contrast) with CL in that, as a relative novice, there is enough of a cohesive system that I can imagine writing software in Racket. With other schemes, I've had the distinct feeling of starting from ground zero. Outside Racket, Chicken comes the closest, but is still a long ways off.
Take my comments with a grain of salt; I'm a neophyte who has pretty minimal experience writing any dialect of lisp.
Re: Racket v6.6
#13Typed Racket is gradually typed, right? Does anyone have an example of a Typed Racket application that uses both static and dynamic typing effectively?
Re: Racket v6.6
#14I see that static typing is become a high priority development goal now, even in traditionally dynamic lisps. I see this as a positive for sure.
Matthias Felleisen, one of the developers of Racket, recently gave a talk about the motivation behind typed Racket; it can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTl7Jn_kmio
Minor correction, Matthias created Racket.
Re: Racket v6.6
#15Of all the lisps, Racket appeals to me the most. It lacks the many warts that common lisp has, and has a very clean feel to it. I had tremendous fun solving problems on Project Euler and Rosetta Code using Racket. I highly recommend it for anyone even remotely interested in learing a lisp.
Re: Racket v6.6
#16Of all the lisps, Racket appeals to me the most. It lacks the many warts that common lisp has, and has a very clean feel to it. I had tremendous fun solving problems on Project Euler and Rosetta Code using Racket. I highly recommend it for anyone even remotely interested in learing a lisp.
Re: Racket v6.6
#17John Carmack once said that he is developing VRScript based on racket. Does anyone know if there's any news regarding it's development?
I emailed him in December, asking about the possibility to cross-reference VRscript snippets like you can with HTML and JavaScript. He replied he was hoping to take it in "a URI like direction", but that there was a "significant security review that needs to go on".
Re: Racket v6.6
#18I see that static typing is become a high priority development goal now, even in traditionally dynamic lisps. I see this as a positive for sure.
[deleted]
Re: Racket v6.6
#19It seems that Racket became for Schemes what Common Lisp was for Lisps, which is really good. Racket is famous for carefully chosen design decisions and nerdy attention to details, so in this sense it is much better than Common Lisp which was a dump.)
In my opinion, it is Common Lisp that is famous for carefully chosen design decisions and nerdy attention to details, given the situation and the constraints (Darpa saying 'fix the situation or we cut funding', and lots of implementors anxious to push /their/ way.) Sure, everything isn't "just right" (e.g. READ-FROM-STRING, no 'parse-number'), but that's a universal problem.
Re: Racket v6.6
#20It seems that Racket became for Schemes what Common Lisp was for Lisps, which is really good. Racket is famous for carefully chosen design decisions and nerdy attention to details, so in this sense it is much better than Common Lisp which was a dump.)
In what way was Common Lisp a "dump"?