3 ms·

Some good points, but i find the tone a bit off. I have been eyeing racket for a while now, but could never quite make the jump. Racket (the programming langua

Some good points, but i find the tone a bit off. I have been eyeing racket for a while now, but could never quite make the jump. Racket (the programming language) has definitely a lot of potential, but i do believe the academic side of it and the focus on the "build your own language" part might be an impediment to racket growth. If i was to suggest some stuff : - Clearly split Racket (and typed Racket) the language, evolution of scheme and Racket the PLT framework use to build and construct new languages. Racket / typed Racket should focus on more production/libraries for regular programmer - More examples/libraries/package not directly related to PL and PL teaching. Create a website solely for Racket/typed racket, with the academic part. - DrRacket always felt and looked alien to me. I can't really judge the feature set, but having vscode as the defacto IDE i think would be it more welcoming - This one is will definitively be controversial but introduce a "curly brace"/C style syntax for Racket. Something implemented at the reader level. Same semantic/runtime behavior, and a reader/printer to go between Racket and {C|rust}SyntaxedRacket. That's a lot of effort, so why do this ? I believe the world is looking for a better python. There is a lot of contender right now (julia, nim , etc... etc...). I think racket should also throw their hat in the ring.

priime0 3y ago
> Clearly split Racket (and typed Racket) the language, evolution of scheme and Racket the PLT framework use to build and construct new languages. It's very much possible to use Racket without interacting with macros and language-building features. > Racket / typed Racket should focus on more production/libraries for regular programmer Libraries are dependent on the community, which unfortunately is comprised of mostly academic folk at the moment. > DrRacket always felt and looked alien to me. I can't really judge the feature set, but having vscode as the defacto IDE i think would be it more welcoming I do agree -- if I remember correctly, DrRacket was primarily built as a pedagogic IDE, not one meant for more professional use. VSCode, however, does have the "Magic Racket" extension. > This one is will definitively be controversial but introduce a "curly brace"/C style syntax for Racket. Not necessarily C-style syntax, but you could take a look at Rhombus. It's meant to have a more approachable syntax compared to S-expressions.
- soulbadguy 3y ago
  > It's very much possible to use Racket without interacting with macros and language-building features. I would say that macros are integral part of Racket, maybe event the best part. But point is not about what is possible, it's really about what is the default/obvious part. It wasn't a comment on racket the language, but more about the environement around the language. > Libraries are dependent on the community, which unfortunately is comprised of mostly academic folk at the moment. I am not sure what point you are making here. Julia has a very very strong academic community, but the library ecosystem seems more production ready and actionable. > Not necessarily C-style syntax, but you could take a look at Rhombus. It's meant to have a more approachable syntax compared to S-expressions. Rhombus seems to be more than just alternate syntax. And how is the progress on this thing ? I think to make racket more mainstream would need more than things that are "possible", or available etc... It probably need a cohesive story and experience around those, and that story to be at the for front on how Racket present itself : vs code extension as the main IDE, alt syntax + better libraries.
chriswarbo 3y ago
> his one is will definitively be controversial but introduce a "curly brace"/C style syntax for Racket. Something implemented at the reader level. Same semantic/runtime behavior, and a reader/printer to go between Racket and {C|rust}SyntaxedRacket. This already exists, in a few forms (e.g. Sweet Expressions). I wrote a blog post listing a few, for whenever this topic comes up ;) http://www.chriswarbo.net/blog/2017-08-29-s_expressions.html http://www.chriswarbo.net/blog/2017-08-29-s_expressions.html
- soulbadguy 3y ago
  Let's agree to disagree on this one :)

priime0 3y ago

> Clearly split Racket (and typed Racket) the language, evolution of scheme and Racket the PLT framework use to build and construct new languages. It's very much possible to use Racket without interacting with macros and language-building features. > Racket / typed Racket should focus on more production/libraries for regular programmer Libraries are dependent on the community, which unfortunately is comprised of mostly academic folk at the moment. > DrRacket always felt and looked alien to me. I can't really judge the feature set, but having vscode as the defacto IDE i think would be it more welcoming I do agree -- if I remember correctly, DrRacket was primarily built as a pedagogic IDE, not one meant for more professional use. VSCode, however, does have the "Magic Racket" extension. > This one is will definitively be controversial but introduce a "curly brace"/C style syntax for Racket. Not necessarily C-style syntax, but you could take a look at Rhombus. It's meant to have a more approachable syntax compared to S-expressions.

soulbadguy 3y ago
> It's very much possible to use Racket without interacting with macros and language-building features. I would say that macros are integral part of Racket, maybe event the best part. But point is not about what is possible, it's really about what is the default/obvious part. It wasn't a comment on racket the language, but more about the environement around the language. > Libraries are dependent on the community, which unfortunately is comprised of mostly academic folk at the moment. I am not sure what point you are making here. Julia has a very very strong academic community, but the library ecosystem seems more production ready and actionable. > Not necessarily C-style syntax, but you could take a look at Rhombus. It's meant to have a more approachable syntax compared to S-expressions. Rhombus seems to be more than just alternate syntax. And how is the progress on this thing ? I think to make racket more mainstream would need more than things that are "possible", or available etc... It probably need a cohesive story and experience around those, and that story to be at the for front on how Racket present itself : vs code extension as the main IDE, alt syntax + better libraries.

chriswarbo 3y ago

> his one is will definitively be controversial but introduce a "curly brace"/C style syntax for Racket. Something implemented at the reader level. Same semantic/runtime behavior, and a reader/printer to go between Racket and {C|rust}SyntaxedRacket. This already exists, in a few forms (e.g. Sweet Expressions). I wrote a blog post listing a few, for whenever this topic comes up ;) http://www.chriswarbo.net/blog/2017-08-29-s_expressions.html http://www.chriswarbo.net/blog/2017-08-29-s_expressions.html

soulbadguy 3y ago
Let's agree to disagree on this one :)