4 ms·
Why would you want to learn racket after having learned sml? racket is great, no question about that, but it is mostly an educational tool and a "first language
by stewbrew 4y ago
Why would you want to learn racket after having learned sml? racket is great, no question about that, but it is mostly an educational tool and a "first language". I personally would rather choose a language with a broader real world user base. if you're interested mainly in functional programming, haskell would be a reasonable choice after sml. if not, there are plenty of other possibly more rewarding choices (on the long term).
- jp0d 4y agoActually, you're correct. The only reason I can think of is curiosity. Beyond that it has very little importance, to me personally. That's why I may never do it. But it definitely looks fun. I don't know about Haskell but I'm more interested in F#. Some of my colleagues have worked on Haskell in the academia.
- scns 4y agoF# is a good choice IMO. There is a great book by Scott Wlaschin named Domain Driven Design made functional. Two birds one stone.
- tonyg 4y agoIt's far more flexible than SML. I'd pick Racket over SML for production use any day of the week. (And I have indeed shipped code in both SML and Racket.)
- eru 4y agoRacket is a great language to learn, it's fun. Knowing a language of the ML family already doesn't diminish one's enjoyment of a Lisp. You can still learn those other languages, too. Learning enough about Racket to have some fun doesn't take that long.
- skrishnamurthi 4y agoRacket's student languages are "mostly an educational tool" and designed to be a "first language". Racket, the whole language, is a large, batteries-included, industrial-strength system. It is not less or more powerful than SML, it's different, including offering various strengths that SML does not.