3 ms·

I'm glad you like Racket, but it's really not the case that what we need is to spend time in a Google product group to make Racket better.

by samth 11y ago

nickpsecurity 11y ago
Nobody said you did. He suggested several possibilities. One was working in industry to understand real-world development, deployment, or support needs. Another suggestion is considering real-world issues. That's main one as the other merely supports it. An example would be putting Racket to use on industrial scale projects with groups of programmers from different backgrounds. These would discover any pain points of language/tooling plus opportunities for improvement. Doesn't have to be Google: just practical, diverse, and outside Racket's normal sphere. The reason I used Racket as an example is that they already do some of that at least in their forums. Maybe some commercial sector but I lack data on that. They've evolved to be constantly more useful for both academic and practical stuff through such feedback. If you doubt that or that they're purely academic in a bubble, then feel free to share why. You may have data I dont have but Ive seen them adapt based on external feedback and usefulness in specific cases. Not a Racket user or insider, though.
- samth 11y ago
  I'm one of the core Racket developers, so I also think we're doing pretty well. :) But what you're suggesting requires persuading a large group of developers to adopt a new language -- if you have a recipe for doing that, lots of people including me would love to learn it.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    I figured you might be. ;) "But what you're suggesting requires persuading a large group of developers to adopt a new language -- if you have a recipe for doing that, lots of people including me would love to learn it." What I'm suggesting is a group of people interested in trying something and reporting the results try something and report the results. You don't have to convince anyone of anything as you're responsible for you, not them. :) All you'd have to do is make sure the tutorials/guides, tooling, core libraries, and distribution are in order. Optionally a little bit of evangelism for awareness. Random person on forum or HN: "Hey, I'd like to try to write some business code or some service in a new language. What should I use?" Drop a Racket link, guide, and something on macros & live updates (if racket has it). I remember loving those when I played with LISP back in the day. I wouldn't expect any more from the Racket team. Now, I'll drop Racket references in these tangents if you're saying you all sat around in Plato's Cave with no exposure to real programming past its shadows in academic papers and just came up with everything in Racket on your own. Just seems like there's some feedback loops in there from useful projects that caused improvements that make it more useful in practice. If you say no, I'll concede I'm wrong given you're part of the core team. Then be mystified at its evolution.
    - samth 11y ago
      We certainly put effort into documentation, distribution, libraries, tooling, etc, and there are many Racket users who will bring up Racket unprompted. It turns out language adoption is hard, though. And far be it from me to encourage you to stop mentioning Racket! But I think fewer of the academic projects you mentioned than you think were developed by people based on industry needs. Instead, we Racketeers are all software developers, and we make Racket the language we want to program in. The most significant Racket application at the beginning (and maybe still) is DrRacket, the IDE. Developing that has led to everything from FFI improvements to contract systems, just as an example. I expect the same to be true for many other real working systems developed by academics.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        " But I think fewer of the academic projects you mentioned than you think were developed by people based on industry needs." So, I issue a retraction that's the opposite of my prior claims: Rackets features, libraries, and tooling were all developed by academics or Racket community with feedback or justification from real-world projects (eg web servers) or use in industry. Purely Racket community working within the Racket community on day-to-day, academic or leisurely needs. I'll revisit the others on the list to see which of them might be the same. "And far be it from me to encourage you to stop mentioning Racket!" I wouldn't anyway. You all have earned mention with the right mix of attributes in the project. :) "Instead, we Racketeers are all software developers, and we make Racket the language we want to program in. " That makes sense. Scratching an itch as the old FOSS motto goes. I did the same thing with a 4GL a long time ago. I understand the motivation. Staying with such a project for many years is an angle I apparently haven't caught up to. Regrettably. ;) "The most significant Racket application at the beginning (and maybe still) is DrRacket, the IDE. Developing that has led to everything from FFI improvements to contract systems," That makes sense. It looks like a very complex program. It would stretch the language into programming-in-the-large and robustness territory by itself. "I expect the same to be true for many other real working systems developed by academics." I'll keep it in mind. Thanks for your time and information on the Racket project.

I'm glad you like Racket, but it's really not the case that what we need is to spend time in a Google product group to make Racket better.

by samth 11y ago

I'm glad you like Racket, but it's really not the case that what we need is to spend time in a Google product group to make Racket better.

nickpsecurity 11y ago

Nobody said you did. He suggested several possibilities. One was working in industry to understand real-world development, deployment, or support needs. Another suggestion is considering real-world issues. That's main one as the other merely supports it. An example would be putting Racket to use on industrial scale projects with groups of programmers from different backgrounds. These would discover any pain points of language/tooling plus opportunities for improvement. Doesn't have to be Google: just practical, diverse, and outside Racket's normal sphere. The reason I used Racket as an example is that they already do some of that at least in their forums. Maybe some commercial sector but I lack data on that. They've evolved to be constantly more useful for both academic and practical stuff through such feedback. If you doubt that or that they're purely academic in a bubble, then feel free to share why. You may have data I dont have but Ive seen them adapt based on external feedback and usefulness in specific cases. Not a Racket user or insider, though.

samth 11y ago
I'm one of the core Racket developers, so I also think we're doing pretty well. :) But what you're suggesting requires persuading a large group of developers to adopt a new language -- if you have a recipe for doing that, lots of people including me would love to learn it.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  I figured you might be. ;) "But what you're suggesting requires persuading a large group of developers to adopt a new language -- if you have a recipe for doing that, lots of people including me would love to learn it." What I'm suggesting is a group of people interested in trying something and reporting the results try something and report the results. You don't have to convince anyone of anything as you're responsible for you, not them. :) All you'd have to do is make sure the tutorials/guides, tooling, core libraries, and distribution are in order. Optionally a little bit of evangelism for awareness. Random person on forum or HN: "Hey, I'd like to try to write some business code or some service in a new language. What should I use?" Drop a Racket link, guide, and something on macros & live updates (if racket has it). I remember loving those when I played with LISP back in the day. I wouldn't expect any more from the Racket team. Now, I'll drop Racket references in these tangents if you're saying you all sat around in Plato's Cave with no exposure to real programming past its shadows in academic papers and just came up with everything in Racket on your own. Just seems like there's some feedback loops in there from useful projects that caused improvements that make it more useful in practice. If you say no, I'll concede I'm wrong given you're part of the core team. Then be mystified at its evolution.
  - samth 11y ago
    We certainly put effort into documentation, distribution, libraries, tooling, etc, and there are many Racket users who will bring up Racket unprompted. It turns out language adoption is hard, though. And far be it from me to encourage you to stop mentioning Racket! But I think fewer of the academic projects you mentioned than you think were developed by people based on industry needs. Instead, we Racketeers are all software developers, and we make Racket the language we want to program in. The most significant Racket application at the beginning (and maybe still) is DrRacket, the IDE. Developing that has led to everything from FFI improvements to contract systems, just as an example. I expect the same to be true for many other real working systems developed by academics.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      " But I think fewer of the academic projects you mentioned than you think were developed by people based on industry needs." So, I issue a retraction that's the opposite of my prior claims: Rackets features, libraries, and tooling were all developed by academics or Racket community with feedback or justification from real-world projects (eg web servers) or use in industry. Purely Racket community working within the Racket community on day-to-day, academic or leisurely needs. I'll revisit the others on the list to see which of them might be the same. "And far be it from me to encourage you to stop mentioning Racket!" I wouldn't anyway. You all have earned mention with the right mix of attributes in the project. :) "Instead, we Racketeers are all software developers, and we make Racket the language we want to program in. " That makes sense. Scratching an itch as the old FOSS motto goes. I did the same thing with a 4GL a long time ago. I understand the motivation. Staying with such a project for many years is an angle I apparently haven't caught up to. Regrettably. ;) "The most significant Racket application at the beginning (and maybe still) is DrRacket, the IDE. Developing that has led to everything from FFI improvements to contract systems," That makes sense. It looks like a very complex program. It would stretch the language into programming-in-the-large and robustness territory by itself. "I expect the same to be true for many other real working systems developed by academics." I'll keep it in mind. Thanks for your time and information on the Racket project.