31–40 of 42 posts
The re-design was done by Matthew Butterick [0]. IMHO it looks nice and modern, and quite readable thanks to the great typography, but there are some fair issues raised here. So I opened an issue to let them know about it [1]. [0]: https://github.com/racket/racket-lang-org/pull/28 [1]: https://github.com/racket/racket-lang-org/issues/31
I don't want to be that guy, but I think the design needs work. Especially since the title is saying "has a new design". I wonder what it used to look like. It looks like a nice piece of technology, but like the other guy said, the website is too busy and I don't know where to look at. It took me a minute to find the github link. It's almost like it's hidden purposely. Also the "Books" section is kind of misleading a…
You __are__ that guy. The design is cool and this is the best looking lisp site IMHO.
https://redex.racket-lang.org/
I am trying to read the model part of the set of scopes paper and running it in PLT Redex, but it seems to be unavailable currently.
I don't want to be that guy, but I think the design needs work. Especially since the title is saying "has a new design". I wonder what it used to look like. It looks like a nice piece of technology, but like the other guy said, the website is too busy and I don't know where to look at. It took me a minute to find the github link. It's almost like it's hidden purposely. Also the "Books" section is kind of misleading a…
IMO, the "only show text + links on hover" thing needs to go. If you absolutely must do something like this, please use faded-but-visible text instead of completely hiding it. (It's also really annoying on mobile where you have to actively tap to show the links.) EDIT: Reasoning: Does this page contain the information I need? I can't tell without apparently hovering over everything. (Plus, if I hover away from one of…
The docs are the only part I go to, and they look the same (not a bad thing, because they were always beautiful). Felleisen and and his group have been working on Racket for a long time, and it shows. I think PG's Arc even runs on top of it. Only gripe I can register is that they have gone full-speed-ahead on the DSL/metaprogramming aspect which kind of works against the language. See Tarver's "The Bipolar Lisp Progr…
That so? Then what's the actual use-case for Arc again? It's a Lisp, Racket is a Lisp, hence a Lisp running on another Lisp? "Lisps all the way up"? ---well that's not unconsistent with the target audience I'm sure ;)
IMO, the "only show text + links on hover" thing needs to go. If you absolutely must do something like this, please use faded-but-visible text instead of completely hiding it. (It's also really annoying on mobile where you have to actively tap to show the links.) EDIT: Reasoning: Does this page contain the information I need? I can't tell without apparently hovering over everything. (Plus, if I hover away from one of…
The docs are the only part I go to, and they look the same (not a bad thing, because they were always beautiful). Felleisen and and his group have been working on Racket for a long time, and it shows. I think PG's Arc even runs on top of it. Only gripe I can register is that they have gone full-speed-ahead on the DSL/metaprogramming aspect which kind of works against the language. See Tarver's "The Bipolar Lisp Progr…
> I think PG's Arc even runs on top of it. That so? Then what's the actual use-case for Arc again? It's a Lisp, Racket is a Lisp, hence a Lisp running on another Lisp? "Lisps all the way up"? ---well that's not unconsistent with the target audience I'm sure ;)
I mean if anyone really was actually making any kind of case for Arc, they'd probably start with organizing it and promoting it in ways that would facilitate its inclusion as just another language in the batteries included distributions of Racket.
"Solve problems. Make languages." That basically sums up my problem learning Racket. "What is Racket the language? What language am I supposed to learn? What language am I supposed to use in production code? Will one language be compatible with another? I got lost reading Racket document. One section talk about a class syntax of a language. Another talk about some other stuff that never utilize a class. What am I sup…
I agree there is a problem with 'Racket'.
'Racket' can mean an ecosystem distributed with batteries included. It can mean the language referred to by #lang racket at the top of a source file. And 'Racket' can mean any one of several other languages shipped in the distribution.
Racket the language (aka #lang racket) is a useful general purpose programming language. When #lang racket programs address complex problems they tend to become more complex. When #lang racket programs implement sophisticated procedures, they tend to become more sophisticated. Python, Ruby, C, etc. are similar in that respect. The Racket documentation reflects this. There are parts that are simple and self contained. There are parts that are at the edge of programming language design. And they're all in one place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You __are__ that guy. The design is cool and this is the best looking lisp site IMHO.
Not that this design is bad, I think Guile's site is fantastic. https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/