3 ms·

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? Ref

• 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]