3 ms·
Racket is slow which impacts the entire dev cycle, has even less use of ad-hoc polymorphism than CL (very annoying to have to use the monomorphic functions all
by the-smug-one 4y ago
Racket is slow which impacts the entire dev cycle, has even less use of ad-hoc polymorphism than CL (very annoying to have to use the monomorphic functions all the time), editor support isn't great (SLIME still contends well here, the speed is an issue here too), and the package story is a bit more difficult to get familiar with. Not as interactive in dev as CL, because safety.
Cool arrows in Dr.Racket though, nice macro system, and so on.
- Bogdanp 4y agoI agree that Racket development is less interactive than CL development partly because of the slower compile times and partly because of the way the editors choose to reload modules on change. Nothing inherent prevents fast reloading[1], though, and Racket development is still plenty interactive[2]. I would say the package story is more complicated in CL as a consumer of packages. As a package creator, they're similarly complex. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWj7OPvXGgA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWj7OPvXGgA [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uGJJmjcxzY&t=495s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uGJJmjcxzY&t=495s