Sending these responses to the group. On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Nick Shelley <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks for the link, I should definitely go through that. > > However, after quickly looking through the problem set, it seems like > these are problems made for features, not features solving real problems. > It's easy to say that we have powerful macros and you don't, but until > someone sees how they can apply it to what they are doing, they won't want > it. > > Also, I can know and understand a feature in and out, but maybe never > realize where I can apply it until I see examples. However, since I don't > understand any features that well, maybe some of you experts can say how > easy it is to apply language features to real problems after gaining > sufficient understanding of the feature or whether examples would have been > or were helpful to you even after understanding a feature. > > > On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Tom Maynard <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 05/09/2012 04:50 PM, Nick Shelley wrote: >> >> a list (maybe on a wiki or something) of real problems that were solved >> >> >> In the Clojure sphere, what you're talking about is >> 4clojure<http://www.4clojure.com/>. >> There's no reason a Racketeer couldn't work through the problem set ... and >> since it would be a solo effort (no community support or published >> answers), you'd be thrown on the available resources heavily, and probably >> learn quite a bit more. >> >> OTOH, a Racket version of the same thing ... or a developing 4clojure >> community of Racket solvers ... would indeed be a terrific resource. >> >> Tom. >> >> >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
