Racket • Hacker News Board

Re: Racket

#41

Post by chc » Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 12:32 AM UTC

Hexstream wrote: post #38

chc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment seems to imply that there is already a rich ecosystem of VMs in use, but there aren't really. Basically, there's the Java VM, which is bad for functional languages, and there's Mono, which is not really ideal for Scheme either, nor very popular except that it allows compatibility with .NET. At any rate, I'm pretty sure PLT Scheme predates both Java and the CLI, so you'd be better off slagging Microsoft f…

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llvm

LLVM is not really a virtual machine, at least not in the same sense as the ones we're talking about.

Re: Racket

#42

Post by elibarzilay » Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 1:21 AM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #26

Is there anything like Practical Common Lisp for PLT Scheme?

Not a standalone book, but there's a guide for doing practical things: http://docs.racket-lang.org/more/

Re: Racket

#43

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 1:34 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Racket

#44

Post by aufreak3 » Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 1:51 AM UTC

carterschonwald wrote: post #35

KirinDave wrote: post #18

We really need to give kudos to these guys. They have been persistent for years in developing a high quality Scheme, and then taking it to the next level. PLT Scheme is practical in its library design, flexible in its reader, meticulous in its documentation and fast as an execution engine. Making a language fast and well-documented is a thankless task. It's nothing short of a herculean accomplishment for these guys t…

so so so true. Whats doubly impressive is that many of the core active members are full time academics who are able to frame their research so that they can both spend their time improving their PLT/Racket, and framing their work as also being genuinely top notch research!

Totally agree with both. They've taken great initiative and the criticisms that come with it. On top of all this, they create Moby which compiles to Javascript. If this were a concert, I'd give them a standing ovation.

Re: Racket

#45

Post by obama012369 » Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 3:28 AM UTC

Dear friends, ok?Is now a commercial,Very pleased to recommend this product: http://wowcool.org/productlist.asp?id=s55 【T-shirt】

http://wowcool.org/productlist.asp?id=s13 【 MTB】

http://wowcool.org/productlist.asp?id=n49 【Jordan 2010】

http://wowcool.org/productlist.asp?id=s44 【Watch】

http://wowcool.org/productlist.asp?id=s46 【Jewerly】

http://wowcool.org/productlist.asp?id=s45 【Sunglass】

http://wowcool.org/productlist.asp?id=s60 【Jean】

http://wowcool.org/productlist.asp?id=s53 【handbags】

http://wowcool.org/productlist.asp?id=s68 【Jacket】 Please is assured buy our product,We seek quality first the prestige first customer oriented,Thank you, old or new client of our trust and love We will continue to launch our new product,To meet the growing needs of clients continuously,I wish you a happy life,happy shoping, thank you

Re: Racket

#46

Post by fleitz » Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 5:32 AM UTC

angrycoder wrote: post #4

Now that is great rebranding. All it needs now is 'try Racket in your browser' and a video of some dude making a blog in 15 minutes using Racket. Then it will be the new hotness.

Almost, you need a twitter client these days, blogs are passe.

What good is a language if you can't make yet another twitter client in 15 minutes.

Re: Racket

#47

Post by morphir » Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 6:06 AM UTC

gorm wrote: post #11

As if we are not already busy learning clojure?

write factorial in scheme, then in clojure. And you might see an very interesting difference. Hint: the jvm does not have tail call optimization.

Re: Racket

#48

Post by lelele » Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 12:13 PM UTC

What I don't like about Racket (former PLT Scheme) is that it's a closed environment. You can't use common Scheme libraries (for instance: SLIB), debugging facilities are hidden into Racket's editor therefore you can't access them from Emacs or other tools, etc.

Re: Racket

#49

Post by samth » Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 1:02 PM UTC

cgbystrom wrote: post #19

Languages aside, I don't think the world needs another VM. Can't people just target an existing one? Please?

First, the Racket VM has been under development since 1995, so it's not "another VM".

Second, the Racket VM supports lots of things that other VMs don't: the Racket module system [1], kill-safe synchronization [2], custodians and eventspaces [3], first-class continuations, and many other things besides.

[1] Composable and Compilable Modules, Flatt 2002

[2] Kill-Safe Synchronization Abstractions, Flatt + Findler 2004

[3] Programming Languages as Operating Systems, Flatt et al, 1999

Re: Racket

#50

Post by fierarul » Tue, Jun 08, 2010, 1:22 PM UTC

morphir wrote: post #47

gorm wrote: post #11

As if we are not already busy learning clojure?

write factorial in scheme, then in clojure. And you might see an very interesting difference. Hint: the jvm does not have tail call optimization.

As if somebody would pick Scheme over Clojure for tail call optimization alone.

Clojure has a lot of handy stuff and the fact that's built on top of the JVM (with its limitations, indeed) is a major plus.