4 ms·
> Every time I think about it, the lack of libraries holds me back. Perhaps it seems that it lacks libraries compared to the NPM repository, or to Java, but la
by flavio81 9y ago
> Every time I think about it, the lack of libraries holds me back.
Perhaps it seems that it lacks libraries compared to the NPM repository, or to Java, but last time checked, there are 779 packages listed for Racket:
https://pkgs.racket-lang.org/ https://pkgs.racket-lang.org/
Have you taken a look to see if you find what you need?
For a parallel example: At first I was reluctant to develop in Common Lisp due to what appeared to be "too few libraries", again, it's just an appearance when you compare to the amount of libraries for a more mainstream platform like Java or C++. However, for CL i found all the libraries i needed (and then some); i wouldn't be surprised if for Racket you can find everything you need.
- int_19h 9y agoIt's usually not so much the number of packages itself, as it is the degree of maturity or support. It is indirectly connected to count in a sense that, say, you might have a dozen packages doing the same thing for Java or Node, of which three have more than one maintainer, and one is mature and stable - and so you can use that latter one without worry. Whereas in smaller ecosystems, you often end up with just one package being your only option, and so you just live with the fact that it has a single maintainer (who can decide to quit for whatever personal reasons any day), and has been version 0.x for years.
- flavio81 9y agoHowever, in Racket (and Scheme, Lisp, Clojure, LFE, etc.), due to the extra flexibility, the language lets you extend the library in a much easier way (than in Java or C++), so becoming a contributor to said library becomes a viable proposition.