Excellent post! I fully agree. -- Manfred
On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 01:30:01 +0000 Matthew Eric Bassett <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/05/2014 09:03 PM, Junia Magellan wrote: > > I would like you to understand that most people are not PhD in > > Computer Science. 90% of people want to run out of the box > > applications. Even programmers don't have in depth knowledge about > > the workings of computers and operating systems. I don't know why > > Racket 6.0 needs libc.so.6, or GLIBC_2.14. I just want to run > > statistics programs written in Racket from an Internet page. > Hi Junia, > > I'm not a racket dev, indeed, I've not even downloaded Racket 6.0. I > am a heavy user of racket. In fact, I several people in my company > (NBCUniversal) use racket nearly every day. These aren't PhD's in > computer science - these are finance managers, marketers, and sales > people who never use anything other than excel, outlook, and ie...and > well, now, racket. Albeit version 5.3.6. > > The racket devs work very hard (for free, too), and they put out an > excellent product. DrRacket is a superb ide, and the racket language > (and its language-building libraries) are superb tools for multiple > environments. They, in fact, do work out of the box for those who > aren't expecting to be able to compile from source. > > Racket 6.0 has some pretty big changes, and the errors you're > reporting are a bit a fluke. To be fair, I don't know anyone who has > had a pain-free conversion from python 2 to python 3, either. > > It's great of you to report the errors and your build environment, > and to help the community iron out the issues with the 6.0 branch. > But the condescending lecture doesn't help. The Racket devs "get it". > > I felt a need to defend them, and [more importantly] also to > encourage you to keep using racket (we use v5.3.6, which you noted > compiles fine out of the box. and the binaries work great, too). > > Regards, > > Matthew Eric > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
