> On Jan 26, 2019, at 9:03 AM, Sorawee Porncharoenwase > <sorawee.pw...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Matthias, where can I find this "History of Clojure"? I searched for "It is > better to have 100 transducers ..." and found no result (besides this very > thread). I also searched for "History of Clojure" and only found this tweet > <https://twitter.com/richhickey/status/1058083678029537283> from Rich Hickey > in Nov 2018, and it seems he was still writing it back then. Is it available > for public to view now? >
Unpublished notes. But I believe he said something like that during his StrangeLoop presentation of transducers in Clojure. > If we take an argument that we can encode a tuple with a list and get all > benefits from list operations, why don't we (define-values (bool/c true > false) (values int/c 1 0))? Why don't we (Church) encode everything to > lambdas? Functions are infinite data, lists are finite. You need to develop good taste for good compromises. I am the one who pushed PLT Scheme/Racket into the static corner (e.g., structs). But the place in the middle is where the sweet spot is. — Matthias, radical centrist with nuanced opinions often stated in provocative ways :) -- 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.
