There is another interesting video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3zEOsh8AnQ I think that right approach for racket2 design is think in terms of neuroscience and cognitive science.
The things whats really mater is *consistency*, in style, in naming, in logic. Another important thing is right balance in abstraction levels. Very important thing is correlation in mental model, code syntax, and code semantics. This is another reason against infix notation and C like syntax, we made lisp look like C but semantic remains the same - this will create huge problem of code understanding. And this is the major problem for people who learning how to write programs, they struggling with infix notation a lot already, C like syntax is a mess, and introducing it to lisp language will create untold problems with understanding. Lisp is great for representing time flow, it doesn't mess with code execution order, so this is strong side that must be used in advantageous way. The weak side is data structures representation, relation between data, etc, this is where things can improve. Introduction of typed racket is good in this sense. Because it allows to create bounds between functions and data. понедельник, 29 июля 2019 г., 1:53:18 UTC+3 пользователь Atlas Atlas написал: > > Found this interesting video on GopherCon > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps3mBPcjySE > <https://slack-redir.net/link?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPs3mBPcjySE&v=3> > Speaker raises questions about what a program code is and how it should > look > -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/e82d26a8-5526-4c57-8531-99eb57d13acf%40googlegroups.com.
