Racket v6.6

#1

Post by kakashi19 » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 11:38 AM UTC

Racket v6.6
blog.racket-lang.org

Re: Racket v6.6

#2

Post by rayalez » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 12:35 PM UTC

John Carmack once said that he is developing VRScript based on racket. Does anyone know if there's any news regarding it's development?

Re: Racket v6.6

#3

Post by daveguy » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 1:38 PM UTC

Just wanted to point out the Racket quick start tutorial. It is a well written easy to understand introduction/expansion on hello world for a functional language:

https://docs.racket-lang.org/quick/

Highly recommended even if you aren't looking to pick up a new language or delve into functional programming.

Re: Racket v6.6

#4

Post by hellofunk » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 1:49 PM UTC

I 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.

Re: Racket v6.6

#5

Post by dmit » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 1:56 PM UTC

rayalez wrote: post #2

John Carmack once said that he is developing VRScript based on racket. Does anyone know if there's any news regarding it's development?

He showed it off during a live coding session last year:

https://youtu.be/ydyztGZnbNs

Re: Racket v6.6

#6

Post by jhck » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 1:58 PM UTC

hellofunk wrote: post #4

I 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

Re: Racket v6.6

#7

Post by dschiptsov » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 2:30 PM UTC

It 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.)

Re: Racket v6.6

#8

Post by metaobject » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 2:41 PM UTC

jhck wrote: post #6

hellofunk wrote: post #4

I 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

I wonder if you could do something like prototype in dynamic (original, if you will) racket and then release in typed racket for performance/safety reasons.

Re: Racket v6.6

#9

Post by Profan » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 2:52 PM UTC

metaobject wrote: post #8

jhck wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I wonder if you could do something like prototype in dynamic (original, if you will) racket and then release in typed racket for performance/safety reasons.

I think that was one of the purposes of Rackets typesystem, to fit idiomatic Racket code well enough that you wouldn't have to rewrite most of it to introduce static typing to a Racket program.

Re: Racket v6.6

#10

Post by richard_todd » Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 2:58 PM UTC

dschiptsov wrote: post #7

It 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 not finding it. In fact, racket claims to have changed their name to "racket" in the first place because they were so far from Scheme that it was confusing to everyone (http://www.racket-lang.org/new-name.html). I wouldn't say that about Common Lisp vs predecessor lisps.