3 ms·
"So I think that's where Racket is apart from the Lisps and the Schemes: its core language is syntactically minimalist, as a Scheme, while it strives to have a
by gnosis 13y ago
"So I think that's where Racket is apart from the Lisps and the
Schemes: its core language is syntactically minimalist, as a Scheme,
while it strives to have a vast standard library, as a Lisp. Three
years ago, they renamed it from PLT Scheme to Racket for this reason."
Chicken Scheme is in the same position. It has a pretty extensive library,
extends far beyond R5RS, avoids R6RS, and plans to be R7RS compliant.
It also has the great advantage of compiling down to C.
- irahul 13y ago> Chicken Scheme is in the same position. It has a pretty extensive library, extends far beyond R5RS, May be I am looking from Racket's vantage point, but chicken scheme is R5R7 + some srfi. Compared to Racket which adds oop, myriad of languages(lazy, typed, datalog...), units, factories...chicken looks like a pretty loyal scheme. > It also has the great advantage of compiling down to C. I am curious. If I am not planning cross compilation, what other advantage compiling to C has? I can bundle the runtime to produce a standalone executable in case of racket as well("raco exe" and "raco dist"). Chicken produces smaller executable but that depends on libchicken. Static linking(for distribution, either I will have to bundle libchicken or static link) produces executable big enough that the size difference is negated.