4 ms·
I had exactly the same experience (minus reading the book). Often, I'd just see the function signature and no further explanation. I do realise that it takes a
by Lyngbakr 2y ago
I had exactly the same experience (minus reading the book). Often, I'd just see the function signature and no further explanation. I do realise that it takes a lot of time and effort to build up extensive docs, but it happened enough that I put it down and started looking for another Lisp that compiles down to a binary.
- behnamoh 2y agoI'm curious, which Lisp did you end up choosing?
- Lyngbakr 2y agoI'm still looking around, but Owl is a frontrunner.
- cess11 2y agoIf the bigger runtime isn't a deal breaker, maybe look at Racket.
- behnamoh 2y agoRacket has great documentation but unfortunately even its creatures have moved in to Rhombus which is a non lisp.
- cess11 2y agoNot so sure anyone is using Rhombus besides the few people working on it.
- soegaard 2y agoThat's always the case for new languages :-) Language adoption takes time. Besides Rhombus is still in the integration phase https://github.com/racket/rhombus/discussions/521 https://github.com/racket/rhombus/discussions/521
- soegaard 2y agoHave you tried Rhombus? It feels like a lisp - just without the S-expression syntax. Also, having Rhombus doesn't mean Racket is abandonned. Far from it. Rhombus is built on top of Racket - and has gained a few nifty features in the process.