I am a Racket-using hobbyist. It surprises me that, according to the observation, not many hobbyists are using Racket.
I did programming in a lot of languages, assemblers included, often creating my own languages, even long before I met Scheme or Racket or other Lisp like languages in which it is much easier to implement a new language. Shortly after retiring, almost two decades ago, I decided to stick to Racket (at that time PLT-Scheme). I use it to study my own ideas of making other languages and to check that I am well understanding mathematical algorithms. My work is not a big addition to Racket, but some of my tiny advices did make it. My next project is to transform program fragments considered bad in <https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/performance.html?q=performance> https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/performance.html?q=performance into code that would be accepted as good ones. Might be expensive at expansion-time, but may improve run-time. Before starting this project I am modifying my own Racket modules according to the advices in the above reference. I must admit that much of my code makes offences against the advices. Nevertheless it may help me to identify weak spots in poor code. My 2 cents, Jos Koot -----Original Message----- From: racket-users@googlegroups.com [ <mailto:racket-users@googlegroups.com> mailto:racket-users@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Neil Van Dyke Sent: domingo, 14 de febrero de 2016 15:26 To: Saša Janiška; racket-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [racket-users] Re: (eqv? Racket-land Wonderland) -> #t Saša Janiška wrote on 02/14/2016 07:10 AM: > Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> writes: > >> Being non-mainstream for practitioners, Racket is most popular with >> people who have the freedom to choose any tools they want, not forced >> into a mainstream set of options. Most often this means individual >> alpha techies, researchers, etc. > That's true, but still wonder why not more hobbyist are using it. I don't know how many Racket-using hobbyists there are. I have found, via Google, references to various Racket programming not in the package systems, such as in blogs, by people I don't recall from the email lists. So I wonder whether the people who go to the trouble to release open source packages and/or who participate on the email lists, are actually the minority of users (not counting students required to use Racket for classes). I did have a book in the works, on practical software engineering in Racket, which had baked into the process and tools very-low-friction selective open source sharing of pieces of a system. Based on the ideas of how I thought that would work and why, I have a suspicion that we're losing a lot of what could be open source packages (and additional visible users). Neil V. -- 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> 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.
