4 ms·
Given the Racket2 possible massive syntax changes it seems that using JavaScript was a better choice for a commercial project. That being said I very much prefe
by AlexeyBrin 7y ago
Given the Racket2 possible massive syntax changes it seems that using JavaScript was a better choice for a commercial project. That being said I very much prefer Racket to JavaScript for personal/hobby projects.
- aswanson 7y agoYeah. But Racket seems so much cooler.
- AlexeyBrin 7y agoRacket really is a nice language, we'll see if/how the situation changes once the Racket2 situation is clarified.
- wtetzner 7y agoI think it would have been fine based on https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/racket-users/HiC7z3A5O-k/XPR2wbSJCQAJ https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!msg/racket-users/HiC7z3A... > No matter how Racket evolves, the community is committed > to preserving what we have achieved: today's `#lang racket` > programs will run in the future, and today's > `#lang racket` modules can be used in future Racket programs.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- JoelMcCracken 7y agoVery much an overreaction. The whole point of Racket is to support multiple syntaxes. The idea that a future Racket would NOT support the current syntax seems absurd. But really there are lots of other, better reasons to use JS over Racket for a major commercial project, which may or may not be actually a good call, but a new proposed syntax is not one of them.
- traderjane 7y agoBut where will the culture of Racket go? How will the educational texts, documentation, and general conversations go?
- dmix 7y agoThey could do an Elixir style fork instead? Although a pure syntax change isn’t as significant as what Elixir changed.
- JoelMcCracken 7y agoWhy does the same conversation not come up when discussing typed racket? Is the introduction of a static type system really less culture-shaking than surface syntax?