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.

Reply via email to