Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

I don't mind the parentheses. But I think Racket is kind of bloated and fragmented (I'm new to Racket, but this is the impression that I got so far). There are a lot of forms that are doing similar but slightly different things (e.g., the many let forms), and features that are not well

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 01:49:23AM -0700, Yongming Shen wrote: > On the topic of making Racket 2 more appealing to new users. As a new user > myself, I have one (likely uninformed) suggestion: > > Design and promote a "boring core subset" that an experienced programmer > can pick up easily and

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On the topic of making Racket 2 more appealing to new users. As a new user myself, I have one (likely uninformed) suggestion: Design and promote a "boring core subset" that an experienced programmer can pick up easily and be as productive as when using an "ordinary programming language",

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On 7/30/2019 12:59 PM, Atlas Atlas wrote: вторник, 30 июля 2019 г., 4:40:40 UTC+3 пользователь Sam Tobin-Hochstadt написал: I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here -- the CL type system works very differently -- but local annotation is certainly possible in Typed

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

Hi Sam, On 7/29/2019 9:40 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:31 PM George Neuner wrote: > To me, TypedRacket feels much more like ML than like Dylan or Common > Lisp. Type inference is great - when it works. Coarse grained scope > encompassing declarations are great -

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

вторник, 30 июля 2019 г., 4:40:40 UTC+3 пользователь Sam Tobin-Hochstadt написал: > > I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for here -- the CL type system > works very differently -- but local annotation is certainly possible > in Typed Racket. The `ann` form allows you to annotate any

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 9:31 PM George Neuner wrote: > To me, TypedRacket feels much more like ML than like Dylan or Common > Lisp. Type inference is great - when it works. Coarse grained scope > encompassing declarations are great - when you can figure out what > they should be. Reducing

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:18:26 -0700 (PDT), Atlas Atlas wrote: >My personal big wish is "standard library" consistency and futures(like >more extended date-time functions). > >Another big wish is typed system. Typed racket looks like a BIG step >forward, and gives real benefits, it is shame it

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 09:22:11 -0700 (PDT), Thomas Dickerson wrote: >Since people are talking about running on different "VM" architectures, an >LLVM backend would be lovely and gives WebAssembly for free. +1 >JVM support, on the other hand, seems like a particularly poor time >investment,

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

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

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 05:03:16PM -0700, Atlas Atlas wrote: > пятница, 26 июля 2019 г., 23:35:45 UTC+3 пользователь Hendrik Boom написал: > > > > > One of the great things about Idris is its dependent types, and the > > way they can be used for (constructive) formal logic. I was > >

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 04:21:33PM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:28:24AM -0700, Mike G. wrote: > > ??? Make a clear distinction between mutable and immutable data > > > > Perhaps make everything immutable except for the contents of boxes > > (reminiscent of ML). It

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

пятница, 26 июля 2019 г., 23:35:45 UTC+3 пользователь Hendrik Boom написал: > > One of the great things about Idris is its dependent types, and the > way they can be used for (constructive) formal logic. I was > experimenting with them in the 80's. > > To make them into a secure logic,

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

If anyone wants to collaborate on doing something novel related to visual programming, I've previously done industry R work on that, and am open to serious academic or commercial efforts. Atlas Atlas wrote on 7/28/19 6:53 PM: Found this interesting video on GopherCon

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

Found this interesting video on GopherCon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps3mBPcjySE Speaker raises questions about what a program code is and how it should look -- You received this message because

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 02:41:31AM -0700, Sepand Meenu wrote: > I have approached Racket mainly from a computational perspective (physics > and math), and I've found parentheses so far _not_ much of a distraction or > annoyance. Actually, as far as the parens reduce the amount of syntactical >

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 01:28:24AM -0700, Mike G. wrote: > 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

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

I have approached Racket mainly from a computational perspective (physics and math), and I've found parentheses so far _not_ much of a distraction or annoyance. Actually, as far as the parens reduce the amount of syntactical complexity, I am in favour of them (compared to the nasty syntactical

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

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

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

Prefix notation is good. What makes difficulties is mixed notations. There how it looks: (Math.Sin(1\(1 + Math.Exp(x * -1))) - Math.Pow((1\Math.Log(x - (r * -1))), 3)) \ Math.Sqrt(Math.Pow(x + r, 2)) Add to this functions with more then 2 arguments. Add to this iterations, and it will be complete

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

I thought one of the most compelling parts of Matthew's proposal was at around 37:41 in the video , when he said, I've seen students in my class genuinely struggle with just the syntax. I think it would be very useful to hear more (from Matthew

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

My personal big wish is "standard library" consistency and futures(like more extended date-time functions). Another big wish is typed system. Typed racket looks like a BIG step forward, and gives real benefits, it is shame it have not so much support. Another wish is more fluid transition

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

A couple thoughts, not particularly well-organized, but in a more accessible form here than just tweeting at Alexis. In all this discussion of "parens-less LISP", I find it slightly odd that nobody has mentioned Logo yet. I'm ambivalent about surface syntax, but it's not like this is a

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

The second comment by slaymaker1907 is more progressive and closer to the truth no doubt. I merely meant to say that it does feel odd to take off parens off such a great scheme/lisp. But if there’s an elegant way to do it while maintaining all its power AND making it more approachable, all

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

Dexter Lagan wrote on 7/23/19 3:32 AM: Like the first HN comment said, Currently 71 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20490423 FWIW, due to how the HN post was done, I don't know how representative the comments are of professional developers.  The link was posted around 5pm

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On 22/07/2019 22:42, Breck Yunits wrote: > Aloha folks, > > I had to miss RacketCon this year as we have a new 6 month old at home > and couldn't make the trek out. > > But I would love to lend my efforts to support the initiative to > explore a Racket universe without parens. If folks out there

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

Agreed, parentheses make manipulating code blocks a breeze. Also, I just realized I had confused Crystal with Julia in my initial rant. Made a fool of myself (again). I played with Julia when it reached 1.0 and liked the no-parens yet functional approach. It felt like a lisp in disguise, a

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 6:17:47 PM UTC-4, Zelphir Kaltstahl wrote: > > I just want to give one thought as input to this discussion and will > admit, that I did not read every (but some) of the posts above. > > When I write code in Racket or Scheme, I mostly like the parentheses, as > they

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

Hi Zelphir, Your concerns are absolutely warranted. >From what I've seen there is no advantage that editors can give you with parens, that they can't do better without parens, *given that you've written loads of tests and done the grunt work to make that happen*. Hence, it doesn't make sense to

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

I just want to give one thought as input to this discussion and will admit, that I did not read every (but some) of the posts above. When I write code in Racket or Scheme, I mostly like the parentheses, as they make writing the code easy. I can very easily select a block and move it around,

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

Aloha folks, I had to miss RacketCon this year as we have a new 6 month old at home and couldn't make the trek out. But I would love to lend my efforts to support the initiative to explore a Racket universe without parens. If folks out there are working on this, shoot me an email

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

Maria Gabriela Guimarães wrote on 7/22/19 10:52 AM: > I experimented with various scheme in browser intrepred via JavaScript and compiled to wasm both are not good enough. Insufficient implementations I suppose, or wasm misses features important for a Scheme ... What Maria said.  WASM (not

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On 22/07/2019 16:52, Maria Gabriela Guimarães wrote: > > I experimented with various scheme in browser intrepred via > JavaScript and compiled to wasm both are not good enough. > > Insufficient implementations I suppose, or wasm misses features > important for a Scheme ... > Someone wanting to

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

> I experimented with various scheme in browser intrepred via JavaScript and compiled to wasm both are not good enough. Insufficient implementations I suppose, or wasm misses features important for a Scheme ... Em segunda-feira, 22 de julho de 2019 15:33:59 UTC+1, amz3 escreveu: > > > > On

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 4:26:04 PM UTC+2, Mário Guimarães wrote: > > > > And the JVM in browsers has been thoroughly supplanted by Javascript. > > I missed another VM: Racket2 should also target WebAssembly. > I experimented with various scheme in browser intrepred via JavaScript and

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

> And the JVM in browsers has been thoroughly supplanted by Javascript. I missed another VM: Racket2 should also target WebAssembly. segunda-feira, 22 de Julho de 2019 às 14:44:06 UTC+1, Hendrik Boom escreveu: > > On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:19:39AM -0700, Maria Gabriela Guimarães wrote: > ...

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

On Mon, Jul 22, 2019 at 02:19:39AM -0700, Maria Gabriela Guimarães wrote: ... > > I have mentioned this one, and will repeat again: > > *Make Racket become Language-Oriented Programming on the JVM, the ErlangVM, > and perhaps other mainstream VMs.* And the JVM in browsers has been thoroughly

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

I have read through all the posts before mine, and saw no reference to what could be the solution to the adoption problem. I only remember comments regarding how students feel unconfortable about s-expressions and all those parenthesis Making a language popular in my view is to make it

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

I have read through all the posts before mine, and saw no reference to what could be the solution to the adoption problem. I only remember comments regarding how students feel unconfortable about s-expressions and all those parenthesis Making a language popular in my view is to make it

Re: [racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

I'm not going over why s-expressions are the way to go, mr. Rivest did it best in his 1997 MIT doc: https://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Sexp.txt A parens-less Racket2 would become Crystal. And I don't think we need yet another functional parens-less language. We already have Haskell (hard to

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

Over the years I have loved Racket ... except for those parens ... if only. I don't know when it happened but one day parens and I made a peace treaty, mind melded, became enlightened or just got tired of fighting, but right now I can't see a Racket without parens (s-exps). I have, in fact,

[racket-users] Re: Racket2 possibilities

I'm somewhat reluctant to write this, as I am more conscious then ever of my limitations in terms of what time/energy I can commit and the consistency with which I can do so. But insofar as Honu was mentioned, I feel a bit obligated to at least chime in with some of my knowledge and