4 ms·

>Scheme doesn’t include the most basic string routines. Whoa, really? Racket, arguably the most popular Scheme implementation, seems to have a nice standard li

>Scheme doesn’t include the most basic string routines. Whoa, really? Racket, arguably the most popular Scheme implementation, seems to have a nice standard library with tons of implemented SRFIs. Also, it seems to be gaining popularity (albeit slowly) not only for itself but for Lisps in general.

tachyonbeam 11y ago
Racket is its own language now, it isn't Scheme per-se. They've split apart because of disagreements over which direction the language should take.
- pmelendez 11y ago
  True... it does include R5RS though, and I think it does include lot of libraries for that too.
xrange 11y ago
...is this the string library you are referring to? http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/strings.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/strings.html ...or something more extensive?
- sigzero 11y ago
  I am not sure what you are getting at? More extensive? Those are basic string functions.
  - xrange 11y ago
    One man's paltry can be another man's extravagant. If you are coming from R5RS, then that Racket library would be a breath of fresh air. If you are coming from Perl, then maybe not so much.
    - elibarzilay 11y ago
      That's the first time I hear of Racket being accused of being too small... Looking at http://perldoc.perl.org/index-functions-by-cat.html#Functions-for-SCALARs-or-strings http://perldoc.perl.org/index-functions-by-cat.html#Function... I count about 30 functions (including regexp ones); looking at the racket page I count over 50. Also, I once got the snow yellow at over 3 meters.
muuh-gnu 11y ago
> Racket, arguably the most popular Scheme implementation Umm, NO. Racket isnt a "Scheme implementation". Racket was a Scheme as long as they called themselves MzScheme. Then they decided that they changed too much that a complete name change was justified in order to not confuse users. Racket isnt a "Scheme implementation" for the same reason Scheme isnt a "Lisp implementation".
- iopq 11y ago
  Scheme is a "Lisp implementation", it's just not a "Common Lisp implementation"
- elibarzilay 11y ago
  From http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html -- "Racket is a Scheme". The name change was about very different things than "basic scheme routines", and it would be hard to find any basic scheme implementation without any.

tachyonbeam 11y ago

Racket is its own language now, it isn't Scheme per-se. They've split apart because of disagreements over which direction the language should take.

pmelendez 11y ago
True... it does include R5RS though, and I think it does include lot of libraries for that too.

xrange 11y ago

...is this the string library you are referring to? http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/strings.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/strings.html ...or something more extensive?

sigzero 11y ago
I am not sure what you are getting at? More extensive? Those are basic string functions.
- xrange 11y ago
  One man's paltry can be another man's extravagant. If you are coming from R5RS, then that Racket library would be a breath of fresh air. If you are coming from Perl, then maybe not so much.
  - elibarzilay 11y ago
    That's the first time I hear of Racket being accused of being too small... Looking at http://perldoc.perl.org/index-functions-by-cat.html#Functions-for-SCALARs-or-strings http://perldoc.perl.org/index-functions-by-cat.html#Function... I count about 30 functions (including regexp ones); looking at the racket page I count over 50. Also, I once got the snow yellow at over 3 meters.

muuh-gnu 11y ago

> Racket, arguably the most popular Scheme implementation Umm, NO. Racket isnt a "Scheme implementation". Racket was a Scheme as long as they called themselves MzScheme. Then they decided that they changed too much that a complete name change was justified in order to not confuse users. Racket isnt a "Scheme implementation" for the same reason Scheme isnt a "Lisp implementation".

iopq 11y ago
Scheme is a "Lisp implementation", it's just not a "Common Lisp implementation"
elibarzilay 11y ago
From http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html -- "Racket is a Scheme". The name change was about very different things than "basic scheme routines", and it would be hard to find any basic scheme implementation without any.