elibarzilay

5 ms·

1.
by elibarzilay 9y ago
I don't know what this refers to, but it doesn't ring a bell. The most I might have said is that the community in general is not too interested; but personally, this kind of dynamic interaction is something that I very much appre
2.
by elibarzilay 9y ago
You could have used the scribble reader (the @-expression syntax, not to be confused with the full documentation system). But you'd also then find that there is a more robust way to get what you implement with a simple definition:
3.
by elibarzilay 11y ago
That's the first time I hear of Racket being accused of being too small... Looking at http://perldoc.perl.org/index-functions-by-cat.html#Function... I count about 30 functions (including regexp ones); looking at the
4.
by elibarzilay 11y ago
From http://racket-lang.org/new-name.html -- "Racket is a Scheme". The name change was about very different things than "basic scheme routines", and it would be hard to find any basic scheme implementat
5.
by elibarzilay 14y ago
Not just now -- this library has been up for a number of years.
6.
by elibarzilay 14y ago
Right. Perhaps a better way to summarize this is that: * Lisp made the first giant step of having code representable as data for meta-programming, and chose sexprs to do so * Common Lisp came later, and made the important step of requirin
7.
by elibarzilay 14y ago
You should be careful here, and not lump together "many Schemes" and "Racket" (or other specific Scheme implementations). The thing is that Scheme standards have traditionally avoided tying the language with a macro system that requires so
8.
by elibarzilay 14y ago
Um, when I write code in Typed Racket (and I have a whole course using it), the code tends to be much more similar to ML than to conventional Lisps. When I write code in Lazy Racket, it is somewhat like a dynamically typed version of Haske
9.
by elibarzilay 14y ago
All of this sounds like you're one of these people who see parens and run away screaming "LISP!". Yes, the default Racket syntax uses S-expressions, but concluding that it's in some way lumped with Emacs Lisp is extremely wrong. And yes,
10.
by elibarzilay 14y ago
These days Racket is on a similar performance level as many lisps, and it also has three kinds of concurrency for you to choose from.
11.
by elibarzilay 16y ago
Racket now includes a new facility -- "features" -- which are essentially a lightweight OS-level thread. There's also another -- "places" -- which is a more separated heavy threads (closer to a new process), but that one is not enabled by
12.
by elibarzilay 16y ago
Not a standalone book, but there's a guide for doing practical things: http://docs.racket-lang.org/more/
13.
by elibarzilay 16y ago
5.0.0.1 is the version of the repository -- it's a development version that should not be considered stable.
14.
by elibarzilay 16y ago
That's up to the linux packagers. It took them a while to settle on "plt-scheme" in the past, so it will probably take some time now too.
15.
by elibarzilay 18y ago
PLT Scheme is not "interpreting" code. More than that, Arc adds a bunch of huge overheads that could make things substantially faster. I had some patches lying around that made things around 4-5 times faster (including the news server).
16.
by elibarzilay 18y ago
Something that could be done for now, is to write a piece of mzscheme code that "marshalls" the data in (utf-8-encoded) byte-strings. Assuming that most of the 2gb is made of strings, and that these strings are mostly ascii, this should re
17.
by elibarzilay 18y ago
In general, 3m is performing very well, much better than the conservative collector plt used to use by default (the boehm gc). As for the jit: many of the benefit of the jit are irrelevant in Arc since it doesn't use mzscheme modules; this