3 ms·
XREPL sounds nice. It makes me wish that I liked Racket as well as I feel like I should — it's a nice language, it has a lot of good libraries, and I appreciat
by JasonFruit 12y ago
XREPL sounds nice. It makes me wish that I liked Racket as well as I feel like I should — it's a nice language, it has a lot of good libraries, and I appreciate the reasons it's not RnRS Scheme, but I still don't feel comfortable not being able to make my Scheme[1] at least potentially portable to other implementations.
[1] I know, I know, it's not Scheme. But it's still Scheme.
- samth 12y agoDo you worry about this when you write Python/Ruby/Clojure/Scala/etc?
- JasonFruit 12y agoNot as much, because for at least Python — I don't use the others much — the community is mostly united around a single implementation. Scheme's more varied landscape makes me more concerned with writing portable code.
- brudgers 12y agoBy 'a single implementation' you mean Python 2 or Python 3, right? ;> In seriousness, what sort of portability issues do you see with Racket code? Racket has 32 and 64 bit flavors for *nix, OSX, and Windows. It offers backward/sideways/forward compatibility with R5RS and R6RS. Locked away in the cellar like a crazy aunt, it even includes mutable lists. http://docs.racket-lang.org/compatibility/mlists.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/compatibility/mlists.html
- sigstoat 12y agolooks to me like the racket community is united around a single implementation. the scripting language community is all split up between perl and python and a bunch of shells. ugh. much more problematic.
- samth 12y agoWhat sigstoat said. Put differently, we want you to think of Racket the same way you think of Python.
- jarcane 12y agoI know I certainly do. The very things that make me like Racket over other Lisps are also the things that make me like Python over other imperative languages, ie. clear syntax, quick-to-prototype, big standard library, high quality documentation, etc. etc.