4 ms·

Racket has an enormous standard library. I'm not gonna dare wave numbers around compared to Python, and I'm sure Java beats the both of them, but it's not small

• seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  Not only that, but much of the extended library is incredibly well designed and very innovated (like SlideShow).
  • kaeluka 11y ago
    just checked this out, this is the tool I wanted to build. Thanks!
• keenerd 11y ago
  I packaged Racket 6.2 yesterday, I'll wave some numbers. * Python install: 89MB * Racket install: 417MB But 190MB of Racket is documentation, and a non-trivial amount goes to the DrRacket IDE.
  • soegaard 11y ago
    Note that Racket now have several distributions. The minimal distribution intended for servers is less than 10MB (then install the libraries you need). http://download.racket-lang.org/ http://download.racket-lang.org/
• technomancy 11y ago
  "Not enough libraries" is usually not a complaint about the standard library but about "if I need to do $SLIGHTLY_WEIRD_PROTOCOL, will I have to write it from scratch?" Racket has made strides on this in recent years but still lags far behind Python or the JVM.
  • jarcane 11y ago
    True. There are a fair few packages in raco, but I think Chicken's eggs[1] may be a better bet for 3rd-party support just yet. [1] http://wiki.call-cc.org/chicken-projects/egg-index-4.html http://wiki.call-cc.org/chicken-projects/egg-index-4.html
    • samth 11y ago
      The last time I counted, I think there were more packages between PLaneT and pkgs.racket-lang.org than Chicken eggs. Also, Chicken relies on eggs to provide a lot of things that the Racket standard library contains.
      • jarcane 11y ago
        Fair enough. I'd not done the comparison myself, I use Racket myself.