Opinions are like belly buttons, and I'd like to show you two of mine (as in
that terrible Gene Roddenberry film).
I very much like the overall goals of making Racket more consistent and more
generic. They strike me as reforms of the language. I wonder if adding these
features would be too far from the "spirit" of Racket.
• Make a clear distinction between mutable and immutable data
Perhaps make everything immutable except for the contents of boxes (reminiscent
of ML). It would be a significant change, but I think that it would encourage
functional programming and allow valuable optimizations.
• Offer "unique" data
As used in Clean and Idris, a unique value "is guaranteed to have at most one
reference to it at run-time, which means that it can safely be updated
in-place, reducing the need for memory allocation and garbage collection."
--
READ CAREFULLY. By accepting this material, you agree, on behalf of your
employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and
all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap,
clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and
acceptable use policies ("BOGUS AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your
employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without
prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you
have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your
employer.
--
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 [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/20190726082824.GB10803%40flatline.halibut.com.
