4 ms·
If I understand correctly, the main problem was that the Pyret project wanted Pyret to run directly in the browser, so they needed a JavaScript-backend. Since R
by soegaard 5y ago
If I understand correctly, the main problem was that the Pyret project wanted Pyret to run directly in the browser, so they needed a JavaScript-backend. Since Racket doesn't have a JavaScript-backend, they wrote a compiler in Pyret that compiles Pyret to JavaScript.
I don't see the lack of a JavaScript-backend as failure of the language building facilities of Racket. In fact, the ability to quickly build a new language in Racket, made it possible to try out different features quickly. Also, it made bootstrapping possible.
- kazinator 5y agoHowever, they don't have to turn around and slag it in their documentation, which seems like a dick move. Switching to Javascript has nothing to do with "scaling". They wanted to go to JS, and simply jettisoned their bootstrapping booster rocket once they got there, because they didn't want Pyret users (including maintainers) to have a dependency on a Racket installation that is otherwise irrelevant to the running code.