3 ms·
I understand all that. You don't seem to have understood my comment, which was asking questions about the suitability/fitness of the "#lang" mechanism, rather t
by adsfsdfdsg 5y ago
I understand all that. You don't seem to have understood my comment, which was asking questions about the suitability/fitness of the "#lang" mechanism, rather than questioning the idea of polyglot code on top of Racket.
I guess it seems to me like it hasn't been established whether the "#lang" mechanism is a brilliant invention, or something cheesy. My initial reaction is that it seems cheesy.
- dTal 5y agoI'm not sure I'm following, then. You think the basic idea of polyglot programming on top of Racket is sound; but that's what #lang does, and is the interesting bit of what we're talking about. The fact that it's specified with a line at the top of the file is a boring implementation detail - albeit the correct decision in my view, since the information about what language a file is written in clearly belongs with that file - exactly the same reason we have shebangs. But it seems like a minor thing to pick on to deem it "not Racket's USP".