> and more ambitiously, a Racket (subset) ->JavaScript compiler (rjs), taking a > distinct approach from Whalesong.
The short answer: +1 The longer: I am no fan of JavaScript, which I consider a brain-eating virus. [1] But IMO the "frameworkification" of JS has made it even worse. Yes, the wheel-reinvention critique is also leveled at Lisps. But never have so many devoted so much effort to creating ever-larger elephants to crush ever-smaller peanuts. [2] And yes, I maintain a package called `sugar`. Dry humor intended. Would that JS frameworks acknowledged their place in the world. Which is mostly to create mutually unintelligible dialects of JS. Today, I use Pollen as a JS preprocessor. [3] That's a lot better than JS alone. But I notice that 90% of my JS code uses 10% of the language. The usual: variables, loops, functions. Manipulation of the DOM. Async requests. The idea of a subset of Racket that compiles to this kind of statistically probable subset of JS is very appealing. Especially if it can obviate the need or should I say "need" for a JS framework. [1] https://youtu.be/20GGVNBykaw?t=128 [2] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3811678/add-two-variables-using-jquery [3] http://pollenpub.com -- 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.
