Laurent writes: > Furthermore, files and github are not chosen by Racket, so I don't > personally mind that much using a few external tools if Racket > can't do it itself (I'd still rather have Racket do it itself of > course; I want a Racket machine). What's more, whether `raco` is
I'd go one step further and say that for some tasks I prefer to use external tools, and the possibility of doing so if very important for me. The point is that much of what I do on my computer is outside of the scope of Racket, so I need to integrate Racket into my overall workflow. I edit lots of file, including Racket source code, so I much prefer to use Emacs for everything, even though DrRacket is perhaps superior for writing Racket code. I use version control for almost everything I work on, so I prefer standard tools (Mercurial, Git), even if Racket one day comes with built-in version control. The idea of creating an all-encompassing programming environment has been tried a few times in the past. Lisp machines have disappeared. Smalltalk is insignificant. For now, Racket has found a good compromise and I hope it will stay there. Konrad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
