Will it work on top of GNU Guile[1] as well? It became very fast since 3.0 version with the introduction of JIT[2].
[1] https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
[2] https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/news/gnu-guile-300-releas...
Racket-on-Chez Status
41–50 of 53 posts
Re: Racket-on-Chez Status
#42Will it work on top of GNU Guile[1] as well? It became very fast since 3.0 version with the introduction of JIT[2]. [1] https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/ [2] https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/news/gnu-guile-300-releas...
It is difficult because there are a lot of minor details that has been added to Chez Scheme or to the patched version of Chez Scheme that is used by Racket.
For example ephemerons, that need some magic to cooperate with the garbage collector. https://cisco.github.io/ChezScheme/csug9.5/smgmt.html#./smgm...
Re: Racket-on-Chez Status
#43Question from someone who knows barely anything about the Scheme ecosystem: It seems that the one of the motivations for starting this effort, besides performance, was to move away from a C code base. Is Chez Scheme primarily written in Scheme?
Yes, Chez Scheme is mostly written in itself, including most primitives and the entire compiler. Additionally, the way Racket CS is architected, significant parts of the C-implemented Racket runtime are instead written in Racket and compiled to Chez Scheme ahead of time, such as the thread system and the IO library.
Re: Racket-on-Chez Status
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is how it rings to my ear. Racket as is, is in some way frozen when it comes to features and big changes. Rhombus is where the next set of awesomeness will happen. You still seem to be misunderstanding how Racket and #lang's work. Rhombus and Racket will be the same language, but with different parsers. Big features of Rhombus will be added by adding those features to Racket. Languages in Racket are not develo…
>>Rhombus and Racket will be the same language Exactly the point, one will have to bring Rhombus to Racket's feature parity, which by the link I posted, and the Racket people themselves acknowledge will take several years to happen. That much dev resources have to be dedicated to build a new language which will have the same feature parity as Racket. This effort could be expended to taking Racket forward. This is non…
It will take years (if it is even completed) but it doesn't mean that Racket will not be advancing meanwhile. Most of the discussion is in angry[1] comments in GitHub written while drinking coffee in the morning. In these 6 months, I guess the lost development time was only 1 or 2 weeks distributed in small chunks. If I can extrapolate linearly, the delay will be only 6 months (but some parts may take more time, for example rewriting the documentations).
The idea is that the libraries written in Racket will be usable in Rhombus and that the libraries in Rhombus will be usable in Racket. Racket already ships with multiple internal languages, so one more is not a big difference. [2]
Note that some constructions that are special cases that must be implemented by the language are just libraries in Racket. For example most of the implementation of `for` and `match` are in their own library, and even more weird things like at-expressions is just a library https://docs.racket-lang.org/scribble/reader-internals.html Some of them may need some tweaking to make them more idiomatic with the new syntax, but most of the implementation will be useful as is.
[1] Most comments are nice, but let's add some drama to make the story more interesting.
[2] Some languages have more impedance mismatch and need some macro magic to make sharing easy. In some languages sharing libraries is straightforward.
Re: Racket-on-Chez Status
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An awesome lisp, a top successor for Common Lisp and a playground for experiments and initiating people into Lisp. As good as its development environment might be for learning purposes and research, it is no match for neither LispWorks nor Allegro Common Lisp, so it is hard to be a top successor. In fact there isn't a single commercial Scheme has successful in the market as those Lisp environments, with exception o…
Not to be rude, but apart from Clojure, other Lisps are non-existent in production compared to the software world at large. One could even consider Scheme as more widely used than CL. The biggest production use case for Lisp today is to learn Lisp. The biggest use case for Scheme, CL, or Racket is to use to learn Lisp. Racket that way was quite successful. With all this going on now. Scheme is the only serious Lisp f…
> Clojure, other Lisps are non-existent in production compared to the software world at large
Clojure is also non-existent in production to the software world at large.
The latest Clojure survey had roughly 2500 people giving feedback. That's a drop in the ocean of many millions of Java, C, C++, C#, Python and Javascript programmers. Rough estimates say that there are >7 million Java programmers world-wide.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/programming-languages-python-d...
The number of Clojure programmers is probably less than 1/1000ths of that.
Re: Racket-on-Chez Status
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because you are not exactly running Rhombus as a side toy language, but as a successor to Racket. This requires Rhombus to eventually replace Racket. Anything less than this and it makes Rhombus a non-successor to Racket. While at the same time much needed resources to make Racket win, will go to making Rhombus happen. Even if Rhombus comes along, it won't have any of the current Racket goodness to begin with. Rhombu…
Racket is not like other languages. Racket is a language with first class support for building languages on top of it. And so no, Rhombus does not need to be a "successor" to Racket. It does not need to "replace" Racket. It will have all the current Racket goodness to begin with, because all of its semantics will come from Racket - they will be the same language. Nor will it steal valuable developer attention - a bug…
Woah this is really cool. I’ve had a similar idea but I’m not smart enough to implement it myself. Seems it is really challenging even with all the tools Racket gives you
Re: Racket-on-Chez Status
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is how it rings to my ear. Racket as is, is in some way frozen when it comes to features and big changes. Rhombus is where the next set of awesomeness will happen. You still seem to be misunderstanding how Racket and #lang's work. Rhombus and Racket will be the same language, but with different parsers. Big features of Rhombus will be added by adding those features to Racket. Languages in Racket are not develo…
>>Rhombus and Racket will be the same language Exactly the point, one will have to bring Rhombus to Racket's feature parity, which by the link I posted, and the Racket people themselves acknowledge will take several years to happen. That much dev resources have to be dedicated to build a new language which will have the same feature parity as Racket. This effort could be expended to taking Racket forward. This is non…
> One of the biggest selling points of Racket was that it was continuously being worked on
I was under the impression that SBCL has monthly releases and runs on a bunch of current platforms. It also has a AOT native code compiler for 20 years, which Racket is just switching to. http://www.sbcl.org/sbcl20/
My Linux/ARM64 board runs a current commercial Common Lisp, which is also available natively on a bunch of current platforms incl. iOS, Windows, macOS, Linux, FreeBSD, AIX, Solaris. x86, x64, ARM32, ARM64, SPARC, POWER, ... It has a portable native code AOT compiler since 30+ years.
Re: Racket-on-Chez Status
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
A bit of Googling landed me here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/racket-users/-x_M5wIht... From there: Phase 1: Brainstorming (months) Phase 2: Iterative Design (years) Phase 3: Conversion (months or years) Phase 4: Transition (years) I am a nobody in front of people like Matthew Flatt, but this feels like Seconds Systems Effect taken to its extreme definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effec…
really, if they are concerned about the 'teaching' aspect and parens being less new user friendly, why not just do a LUA-on-racket, maybe with some small extensions for the 'teaching' language - LUA maps to scheme pretty well, and its already 'done'.
Because the teaching isn’t just about the syntax. It’s the concepts. How to Design Programs, does exactly what your says, and it also teaches test driven development. A guide to Racket with pictures allows you to leverage DrRacket’s ability to display graphics inline to become familiar with programming in a more visual way, Making a language in an hour shows you how languages are parsed, and how Racket makes it easier to design your own. All of these things introduce you to concepts and ideas that are useful even if you forget everything about Racket the Language later on.
Re: Racket-on-Chez Status
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
All about it on "The development of Chez Scheme" paper, written on its twentieth anniversary. https://legacy.cs.indiana.edu/~dyb/pubs/hocs.pdf
I don't see the name explained in that document. It does mention ' C -Scheme' and ' Z 80 Scheme' so maybe C he z is a sort of interpolation of those?
In French chez means
"at the home of (used in imitation of French, often humorously)."
This always rings this bell in my mind when I hear this word.
An example: Je suis allé chez Steele et Sussman roughly translates to: I went to the Steele's and the Sussman's homes
Re: Racket-on-Chez Status
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
So will the current Racket language continue to be developed, as in new features, bug fixes and regular releases after Rhombus is released? Renaming doesn't help the case much here, if Racket's future is abandonware.
A bit of Googling landed me here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/racket-users/-x_M5wIht... From there: Phase 1: Brainstorming (months) Phase 2: Iterative Design (years) Phase 3: Conversion (months or years) Phase 4: Transition (years) I am a nobody in front of people like Matthew Flatt, but this feels like Seconds Systems Effect taken to its extreme definition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effec…
> I am a nobody in front of people like Matthew Flatt, but this feels like Seconds Systems Effect taken to its extreme definition:
I think you are mistaking working time for bloat; they can be inversely related; it's easier to add lots of ideas, it's harder to pare things down.
> Plus as a former Perl programmer having watched Perl 5 lost almost everything, chasing a never to have come to reality Perl 6. I can say, given all this, the future of Racket as a language, for its core uses and users is pretty much dead in the years to come. Like dead totally.
This isn't Perl 6.
> Many people prefer a perfectly working tool improved over time, than a pie-in-the-sky idea that will never come to see the light of the day.
Pretty much everyone does, but Racket remains the former. Neither the schedule nor the ambition of new Racket development has been scaled back for Rhombus. It's not even clear that they would once Rhombus was generally available and hosting Racket, though there would also be a place for improvements that didn't fit in Racket.