4 ms·

The language is in use in introductory courses, with a gradual introduction of these topics. It's no different from using any other modern programming language

The language is in use in introductory courses, with a gradual introduction of these topics. It's no different from using any other modern programming language in education. Our goal is to eventually create language levels, pioneered by DrRacket, based on what we learn from observation. This is a research project in addition to a development one, where the research is into human factors.

colanderman 13y ago
Why replace Racket with Pyret? Is this purely to stop students from being able to complain about syntax or is there a deeper strategic reason behind this? Refinement types are nice. I really wish those were more common.
- skrishnamurthi 13y ago
  Your second paragraph answered your first paragraph (-:. 1. We have a different view of static typing than Racket. 2. We have a different view of the type language than Racket. 3. Long term, we are working on smoothly integrating testing, types, and specification [as a spectrum -- perhaps even as a cycle -- rather than as three different things]. Refinements are an instance of this. Another is our plan for how to do type inference. 4. I am also convinced that parenthetical syntax has real problems that I can't completely ignore. Of course, it doesn't hurt if it can get people to stop complaining. (It's not only students: the bigger opposition often comes from teachers. Unfortunately the teachers control the path to the students, so their views _really_ matter!)
  - colanderman 13y ago
    I am also convinced that parenthetical syntax has real problems that I can't completely ignore. What brought you to this conclusion? Experience from Bootstrap (in which I found arithmetic and parenthesis counting to be the biggest stumbling blocks) or just personal reflection?
    - skrishnamurthi 13y ago
      All of the above, plus the research that Guillaume Marceau, Kathi Fisler, and I did.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]

colanderman 13y ago

Why replace Racket with Pyret? Is this purely to stop students from being able to complain about syntax or is there a deeper strategic reason behind this? Refinement types are nice. I really wish those were more common.

skrishnamurthi 13y ago
Your second paragraph answered your first paragraph (-:. 1. We have a different view of static typing than Racket. 2. We have a different view of the type language than Racket. 3. Long term, we are working on smoothly integrating testing, types, and specification [as a spectrum -- perhaps even as a cycle -- rather than as three different things]. Refinements are an instance of this. Another is our plan for how to do type inference. 4. I am also convinced that parenthetical syntax has real problems that I can't completely ignore. Of course, it doesn't hurt if it can get people to stop complaining. (It's not only students: the bigger opposition often comes from teachers. Unfortunately the teachers control the path to the students, so their views _really_ matter!)
- colanderman 13y ago
  I am also convinced that parenthetical syntax has real problems that I can't completely ignore. What brought you to this conclusion? Experience from Bootstrap (in which I found arithmetic and parenthesis counting to be the biggest stumbling blocks) or just personal reflection?
  - skrishnamurthi 13y ago
    All of the above, plus the research that Guillaume Marceau, Kathi Fisler, and I did.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]