I don't know --- sometimes I think Racket is the less popular Lisp in
here. When you guys look at libraries like syntax-parse, don't you feel
like switching to Racket for good?
Some other day someone said --- why isn't Racket a thinner layer on top
of POSIX? Maybe that's one of the reasons?
On 2024-01-04, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
I don't know --- sometimes I think Racket is the less popular Lisp in
here. When you guys look at libraries like syntax-parse, don't you feel
like switching to Racket for good?
Some other day someone said --- why isn't Racket a thinner layer on top
of POSIX? Maybe that's one of the reasons?
I don't have much interest in Racket because I made myself something
called TXR Lisp. That /is/ actually a thinner layer on top of POSIX.
It is spiritually connected to CL more than anything else.
To fool C and Unix people, I pitched this language as a command line
tool similar to Awk and what have you, and made sure it is documented by nothing but a single man page. The one thing that gives the ruse is
that the man page grew to over 950 pages (in PDF form).
About Racket, a Common Lisp vs. Racket article from 2022 recently
appeared on HackerNews:
https://gist.github.com/vindarel/c1ef5e043773921e3b11d8f4fe1ca7ac
The author argues that Racket is substantially less dynamic.
If he is right, that could be something that turns away Common Lisp
people.
However, note that this newsgroup has always been Common-Lisp-oriented,
even though it's not comp.lang.lisp.common or comp.lang.comon-lisp.
Discussions of other Lisps are not off topic, but just don't happen.
It doesn't speak to anything other than what this newsgroup is.
Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> writes:
I don't know --- sometimes I think Racket is the less popular Lisp in
here.
Well technically since Racket is a member of the Scheme family, you
should probably be using comp.lang.scheme for talking about it. Many
years ago that would have definitely been correct since comp.lang.scheme
was gatewayed to an active Scheme mailing list. But the Scheme mailing
list has been dead for years, and comp.lang.scheme now gets almost no
traffic other than announcements.
But there was never a Common-Lisp-only newsgroup, so the Common Lisp
folks gathered here. The Scheme folks went to comp.lang.scheme, and the Emacs Lisp folks went someplace I no longer remember.
I suppose that these days if you're weird enough to be using both Usenet _and_ and some flavor of Lisp, you're in such sufficiently small company
that you might as well come here.
Aren't the cool kids all off using some social media web site to talk
about Racket?
Is TXR able to use all libraries from CL?
Some other day someone said --- why isn't Racket a thinner layer on
top of POSIX? Maybe that's one of the reasons?
On 2024-01-04, Julieta Shem <jshem@yaxenu.org> wrote:
Is TXR able to use all libraries from CL?
None. It's possible to port some things, but it requires work.
I ported only one: CL-WHO, which is named TL-WHO:
https://www.kylheku.com/cgit/tl-who/about/
It was interesting.
I don't know --- sometimes I think Racket is the less popular Lisp in
here. When you guys look at libraries like syntax-parse, don't you feel
like switching to Racket for good?
Some other day someone said --- why isn't Racket a thinner layer on top
of POSIX? Maybe that's one of the reasons?
Racket is derived from Scheme (which also is NOT Lisp).
On Thu, 04 Jan 2024 21:28:14 -0500, George Neuner wrote:
Racket is derived from Scheme (which also is NOT Lisp).
There is the distinction between “Lisp2” (including Common Lisp and other >traditional LISPs) and “Lisp1” (typified by Scheme). I take it Racket is a >“Lisp1”-type language?
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 299 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 27:01:47 |
Calls: | 6,681 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,222 |
Messages: | 5,342,299 |
Posted today: | 2 |