7 ms·

Because you're John Carmack. You'll attract devs no matter what you use, so it makes sense to use the best tools available.

viach 11y ago
Yes, he of course can afford this - to play with things he likes. But will it blend?
- codygman 11y ago
  Does it need to blend? Were Racket the only supported scripting language for Oculus I'm sure people would just learn Racket rather than skipping out on Oculus.
  - sklogic 11y ago
    No need to learn Racket, it's easy to build any language on top of it. Having a single meta-language as a base allows diversity and choice for end users that is not possible with any of the inferior (non-meta) languages.
  - p4bl0 11y ago
    As sklogic said, no need to learn Racket: It has multiple Lipsy dialects: http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/dialects.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/dialects.html And a datalog one: http://docs.racket-lang.org/datalog/index.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/datalog/index.html It knows C: http://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/doc/c/index.html http://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/doc/c/index.html And Javascript: https://github.com/lwhjp/ecmascript https://github.com/lwhjp/ecmascript And Algol: http://docs.racket-lang.org/algol60/index.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/algol60/index.html And Pascal: https://github.com/soegaard/minipascal https://github.com/soegaard/minipascal It shouldn't be too difficult to teach it Lua ;).
ahoge 11y ago
Best? If we'd all agree on what "best" means, we wouldn't discuss anything ever. Scheme and all the other Lisp variants look terrible to me. Having an excessively simple syntax doesn't mean that it's nice to use. They went too far. This is probably the primary reason why Lisp dialects aren't more popular. Even the simplest code examples look like some sort of practical joke. (let ((hello0 (lambda() (display "Hello world") (newline)))) (hello0)) [Edit: This example was taken from Wikipedia's Scheme article.] Something like that in Dart: hello() => print('Hello world'); hello(); Dart's syntax is way more complicated, but this is much easier to understand, isn't it?
- Arcanum-XIII 11y ago
  Seriously ? (defn hello [] (println "hello world")) (hello) ;; in Clojure (defun hello () (format t "hello world")) (hello) ;; in Common Lisp.
  - ahoge 11y ago
    The example was taken from Wikipedia's Scheme article. I do not know how to write Hello World in Scheme. By the way, I really like how everyone's Hello World looks different.
    - sklogic 11y ago
      So, you know nothing about Scheme, but yet dare to have an opinion?
      - ahoge 11y ago
        Yes, I "dare" to have an opinion on that syntax. I like it from a theoretical point of view. It's very uniform which is convenient for implementers. It's brilliant, really. However, I dislike it from a practical point of view, because this uniform soup is hard to scan and also hard to write. I pretty much like any other language's syntax better than this one. Even fairly cryptic ones like Erlang's.
        sklogic 11y ago
        > Yes, I "dare" to have an opinion on that syntax. Is not it stupid, to have an opinion about something you do not know and do not understand? > It's very uniform which is convenient for implementers. It's not that uniform, really. It's so flexible that you can make it look any way you like. Any existing language syntax is a subset of this syntax. > because this uniform soup is hard to scan and also hard to write Just use a better text editor then.
        ahoge 11y ago

viach 11y ago

Yes, he of course can afford this - to play with things he likes. But will it blend?

codygman 11y ago
Does it need to blend? Were Racket the only supported scripting language for Oculus I'm sure people would just learn Racket rather than skipping out on Oculus.
- sklogic 11y ago
  No need to learn Racket, it's easy to build any language on top of it. Having a single meta-language as a base allows diversity and choice for end users that is not possible with any of the inferior (non-meta) languages.
- p4bl0 11y ago
  As sklogic said, no need to learn Racket: It has multiple Lipsy dialects: http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/dialects.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/dialects.html And a datalog one: http://docs.racket-lang.org/datalog/index.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/datalog/index.html It knows C: http://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/doc/c/index.html http://pkg-build.racket-lang.org/doc/c/index.html And Javascript: https://github.com/lwhjp/ecmascript https://github.com/lwhjp/ecmascript And Algol: http://docs.racket-lang.org/algol60/index.html http://docs.racket-lang.org/algol60/index.html And Pascal: https://github.com/soegaard/minipascal https://github.com/soegaard/minipascal It shouldn't be too difficult to teach it Lua ;).

ahoge 11y ago

Best? If we'd all agree on what "best" means, we wouldn't discuss anything ever. Scheme and all the other Lisp variants look terrible to me. Having an excessively simple syntax doesn't mean that it's nice to use. They went too far. This is probably the primary reason why Lisp dialects aren't more popular. Even the simplest code examples look like some sort of practical joke. (let ((hello0 (lambda() (display "Hello world") (newline)))) (hello0)) [Edit: This example was taken from Wikipedia's Scheme article.] Something like that in Dart: hello() => print('Hello world'); hello(); Dart's syntax is way more complicated, but this is much easier to understand, isn't it?

Arcanum-XIII 11y ago
Seriously ? (defn hello [] (println "hello world")) (hello) ;; in Clojure (defun hello () (format t "hello world")) (hello) ;; in Common Lisp.
- ahoge 11y ago
  The example was taken from Wikipedia's Scheme article. I do not know how to write Hello World in Scheme. By the way, I really like how everyone's Hello World looks different.
  - sklogic 11y ago
    So, you know nothing about Scheme, but yet dare to have an opinion?
    - ahoge 11y ago
      Yes, I "dare" to have an opinion on that syntax. I like it from a theoretical point of view. It's very uniform which is convenient for implementers. It's brilliant, really. However, I dislike it from a practical point of view, because this uniform soup is hard to scan and also hard to write. I pretty much like any other language's syntax better than this one. Even fairly cryptic ones like Erlang's.
      - sklogic 11y ago
        > Yes, I "dare" to have an opinion on that syntax. Is not it stupid, to have an opinion about something you do not know and do not understand? > It's very uniform which is convenient for implementers. It's not that uniform, really. It's so flexible that you can make it look any way you like. Any existing language syntax is a subset of this syntax. > because this uniform soup is hard to scan and also hard to write Just use a better text editor then.
        ahoge 11y ago