Just in case, you might want to check out Racket's places and futures constructs.
On Friday, July 24, 2015, Dmitry Igrishin <dmit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > 2015-07-24 2:48 GMT+03:00 Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','n...@neilvandyke.org');>>: > >> On Racket, CL, limits, programmers... >> >> I've found that most stuff can be done in Racket, and, though I have used >> CL when required by two consulting clients' prior implementation choices, >> I'm not aware that CL has any key advantages over Racket. (Not bashing CL; >> it's a nice platform, with an unusually smart developer community. And, >> earlier in Racket's development, CL was noticeably more proven and mature >> for industrial use. I just have few complaints about being married Racket >> today, and there's no temptation to philander with CL.) >> > As for me, the most noticeable difference between Common Lisp and Racket > that the > most popular implementations of former provides facilities for multiple > /hardware/ threads > of execution. And this is one of the primary reasons why I use Common Lisp > as well. > > > -- > // Dmitry. > > -- > 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 > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','racket-users%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com');> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- 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.
