Brian Adkins wrote on 7/22/19 1:28 PM:
Being unfamiliar with some of Racket's unique benefits, I initially
felt it was simply the best Scheme I could choose for professional
development.
Same here. (Long-timers have heard my story too many times... After I
picked Scheme for my new super-prod
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 9:53:35 AM UTC-4, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>
> > Improved tooling also seems high-effort -- medium-risk --
> > medium-reward. I'll defer to those who concentrate more on tools,
> > including the author of Racket mode for Emacs, to suggest a priority
> > for this one.
[[ Note: I sent this yesterday but the Google list server bounced it.
Although I told Matthew I was fine leaving it that way, with only
him seeing it, he encouraged me to post it again. ]]
Thank you for replying, Matthew.
It sounds like surface syntax, other back-ends, and better tool
At Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:55:03 -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> [...]
> I think it would be a mistake to skip this discussion.
Agreed, so I'll offer my take on these specific questions, at least if
you'll humor my read of "more popular" as "lower barrier".
At Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:55:03 -0400, Greg H
Thank you for replying.
I didn't mean to suggest I thought these things were already happening.
I don't.
And I'm sorry my attempt to express gratitude by saying you had every
right to decree it, sounded like I thought you actually would do it that
way. I don't.
I (mis?)understood that working gr
Matthew Flatt writes:
> The idea that the Racket project leadership is discussing this is
> entirely plausible, of course, given the way things have operated in
> the past. Let me emphasize again, however, that you should take Aaron
> Turon's keynote as evidence that we do not want to do things th
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 10:08:05PM -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> p.p.p.s or whatever level of "p" I'm on:
>
> The core team including Matthew have put decades of work into Racket.
> The effort and dedication is amazing. So if Matthew wanted to decree
> that he's been working on this a quarter c
At Tue, 16 Jul 2019 21:55:03 -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> The stated purpose of this change was to increase Racket's popularity.
The purpose I personally stated was to remove an obstacle to Racket
ideas. It's perhaps fair to characterize that as "increase Racket's
popularity", but I'd like to
p.p.p.s or whatever level of "p" I'm on:
The core team including Matthew have put decades of work into Racket.
The effort and dedication is amazing. So if Matthew wanted to decree
that he's been working on this a quarter century and just wants to
change surface syntax, next, dammit? I would have n
The stated purpose of this change was to increase Racket's popularity.
Someone asked, if Racket were already more popular, would this proposal
be made? The answer was, probably not.
It seems we're jumping over some questions:
1. More popular, among who?
[About "research language": Is it prim
10 matches
Mail list logo
