21–30 of 195 posts
Much as I am a fan of Racket, this is not a friendly intro. It is a speedrun. When an introduction says “friendly”, I don’t expect it to assume that I know what lambda is. When an introduction says “friendly”, I don’t expect syntax rules to appear in it. At all.
While the language is interesting, sadly, nobody is using it in the wild. Maybe due to cumbersome deployment options? The ability to produce native standalone executables would boost its usage I believe.
While the language is interesting, sadly, nobody is using it in the wild. Maybe due to cumbersome deployment options? The ability to produce native standalone executables would boost its usage I believe.
While the language is interesting, sadly, nobody is using it in the wild. Maybe due to cumbersome deployment options? The ability to produce native standalone executables would boost its usage I believe.
Racket has been able to produce standalone executables for a while now.
While the language is interesting, sadly, nobody is using it in the wild. Maybe due to cumbersome deployment options? The ability to produce native standalone executables would boost its usage I believe.
Racket has been able to produce standalone executables for a while now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Homoiconicity.
What makes this a desirable feature? From the perspective where local reasoning is the most desirable property a language can have, how does homoiconicity support that? I honestly am curious. I've seen a few examples presented for it, but they always seem like bad software engineering to me. Where's an example that does something in a cleaner way than alternatives present in other languages while remaining compatible…
If you don't like it, you can try https://rhombus-lang.org/ that is build on Racket and also has macros but uses a Python-like syntax.
But racket is a really nice language to play with.
Much as I am a fan of Racket, this is not a friendly intro. It is a speedrun. When an introduction says “friendly”, I don’t expect it to assume that I know what lambda is. When an introduction says “friendly”, I don’t expect syntax rules to appear in it. At all.
It is rich with information, to the point, and presented in a way that a motivated and competent reader can immediately know something about and be useful with racket. That’s how it was for me anyways; someone who didn’t know anything about racket before reading through this. Wtf kind of intro to a programming language doesn’t include syntax rules? We are all informed, experienced, technologically inclined people her…
PP could have been more clear and say syntax-rules (note the dash), which means macros. Macros are usually considered an advanced topic.
Much as I am a fan of Racket, this is not a friendly intro. It is a speedrun. When an introduction says “friendly”, I don’t expect it to assume that I know what lambda is. When an introduction says “friendly”, I don’t expect syntax rules to appear in it. At all.
It is rich with information, to the point, and presented in a way that a motivated and competent reader can immediately know something about and be useful with racket. That’s how it was for me anyways; someone who didn’t know anything about racket before reading through this. Wtf kind of intro to a programming language doesn’t include syntax rules? We are all informed, experienced, technologically inclined people her…
Given that most languages don’t have syntax rules or anything like it, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that most language introductions/overviews/tutorials don’t mention it.