My experience has been the only time I benefit from #lang racket/base over #lang racket in terms of a noticeable runtime cost is when I'm writing little scripts and running them via "racket" on the commandline. FWIW.
Robby On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Carl Eastlund <c...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: >> Sam Phillips wrote at 10/16/2010 02:52 PM: >>> >>> Is there a useful rule of thumb for deciding if a module should be in >>> the racket language or the racket/base language? >>> >> >> I, for one, always use "racket/base". >> >> In a sidebar alongside the table of contents of the Reference (nope, it's >> not an ad, nor a tangential aside) is a summary of what's in "racket" beyond >> "racket/base". >> >> Saying "#lang racket" and getting *everything* gives good demo, I guess, but >> I prefer to have a smaller base language, and to explicitly identify within >> each module what additions to the base language are used. > > I, on the other hand, prefer to use "racket" unless I'm writing > something whose clients might be concerned about the extra space or > time required to compile and load it. I use the non-base features of > Racket enough that I don't want to have to write several requires each > time just to get them. > > It all depends on what kind of code you happen to be writing. > > --Carl > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
