Hi,
I would appreciate any advice with combining and using Racket and Jupyter
Notebook, if somebody has used these two.
Thanks,
Arie
On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 3:58 PM Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:54:41 -0700 (PDT), Brian Adkins wrote:
> > This may seem like a nitpick, but I
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
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
At Fri, 19 Jul 2019 08:54:41 -0700 (PDT), Brian Adkins wrote:
> This may seem like a nitpick, but I think there would be a *huge* shift in
> attitudes if the suggestion for an infix syntax was framed in a similar
> manner to Typed Racket as opposed to Racket 2. The latter seems to imply a
>
At Tue, 16 Jul 2019 15:45:36 -0300, Gustavo Massaccesi wrote:
> Also, it would be nice to have a rough timeline. 5 years?
N years, anyway. 5 years seems like too long for a plan, although fine
as an actuality. I'd aim for 2 years and try to believe that, so maybe
it could actually happen in 3-4
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
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 08:54:41AM -0700, Brian Adkins wrote:
> This may seem like a nitpick, but I think there would be a *huge* shift in
> attitudes if the suggestion for an infix syntax was framed in a similar
> manner to Typed Racket as opposed to Racket 2. The latter seems to imply a
>
This may seem like a nitpick, but I think there would be a *huge* shift in
attitudes if the suggestion for an infix syntax was framed in a similar
manner to Typed Racket as opposed to Racket 2. The latter seems to imply a
premature conclusion, where the former proposes a question to be answered
Apologies for the long mail. I wanted to get
these thoughts out now while they are fresh.
Tom
Can Racket make semantics a matter of syntax?
If it can, can it produce errors when certain
syntactic forms are incompatible with the
specified semantics? Can all forms in the
language be mapped to all
Let me revise what I said actually, in the spirit of optimism. If an alternate
syntax is considered, one thing I would suggest that is somewhat in line with
Justin, is something like “visually structured data”.
I think as humans we prefer to see things and have them be simple and
interesting,
On 18 Jul 2019, at 19:15, Hendrik Boom wrote:
I still use the car/cdr congomerations. They are quite useful when
parsing a list.
I think I know what you mean. I used to do that, too, till I discovered
match (https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/match.html). That can save
you a lot of
To add another perspective of a relative new-comer to Racket, I became
interested in Racket because it was clearly a lisp, with sexps When
I was shopping around for a reasonable modern lisp to develop things in,
Racket being clearly recognisable syntactically as a lisp was a definite
pro for me –
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 3:47:51 PM UTC-4, Justin Zamora wrote:
>
>
> (string (string-ref (person-first john) 0)
> (string-ref (person-middle john) 0)
> (string-ref (person-last john) 0))
>
> There's a load of cognitive and syntactic overhead compared to something
>
On Thursday, July 18, 2019 at 3:47:51 PM UTC-4, Justin Zamora wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:48 PM Brian Adkins > wrote:
> > I think more people (both existing users and new users) could get
> > excited about Racket2 if it was primarily about making Racket
> > objectively better and only
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 1:48 PM Brian Adkins wrote:
> I think more people (both existing users and new users) could get
> excited about Racket2 if it was primarily about making Racket
> objectively better and only secondarily about overcoming the
> aesthetic objection to parens. The message of
At Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:48:11 -0700 (PDT), Brian Adkins wrote:
> One thing that's still bothering me is the admission that if Racket
> was already popular enough we wouldn't be considering the syntax
> change. This was an answer to a question in a live setting, and I am
> prone to
One thing that's still bothering me is the admission that if Racket
was already popular enough we wouldn't be considering the syntax
change. This was an answer to a question in a live setting, and I am
prone to mis-interpreting/understanding, so I very much want to cut
Matthew some slack since he
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 01:47:53AM -0400, David Storrs wrote:
> Two things that I would like to see in Racket2 would be return values being
> standard practice and the ability to return nothing.
It would be useful in typed racket to have a type that indicates that
the expression never returns a
On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 11:52:24AM -0400, James Platt wrote:
>
> Also related to the background of the users is, for example, the
> family of functions including car, cdr, caar, cddadr, etc.. I
> puzzled over the question of why these functions even exist for quite
> a while. I had never
Like others have said, I'm not sure that syntax is really the issue with Racket
adoption. For me, the difficulty in moving to Racket from other languages is
not the syntax, it's other things. Lot's of parentheses don't bother me.
Writing (2 + 2) as (+ 2 2) is a little weird but It's not
I was going to mention that common lisp has a notion of return arity, and
that certain functions can return zero results. I didn't realize that
(values) also worked in racket. Zero return arity has some nasty
consquences in existing systems. Both racket and guile barf on expressions
like (eq?
>
> The other thing I'd like to see would be the option to return nothing.
> Not #, '(), or #f. Nothing. It's useful e.g. when you want to
> simultaneously transform and filter a list.
>
Would (values) satisfy your criteria?
#lang racket
(define (my-filter-map proc xs)
(match xs
['()
Two things that I would like to see in Racket2 would be return values being
standard practice and the ability to return nothing.
Racket has a lot of functions that return #; that's not helpful. In
almost every case, there is a sensible thing to return and it would be
better to return it -- for
I'm confused on one point.
Why would a new canonical notation be preferable to, say, also fully
supporting an alternative general notation (like Shriram's p4p, or a
derivative thereof) or even multiple notations in addition to retaining
good old s-expressions?
The idea would be that you could
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 8:18:24 PM UTC-4, Alexis King wrote:
>
> On Jul 16, 2019, at 15:32, rocketnia >
> wrote:
>
> I find it worrying that racket2 would be kicked off with infix syntax
> (something which I think of as an unnecessary sticking point in the way of
> prospective macro
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 5:18:24 PM UTC-7, Alexis King wrote:
>
> So instead of thinking about all the ways Matthew’s proposed syntax is a
> compromise that necessarily comes with certain downsides, think of it as a
> challenge: how do we take all the lovely things we’ve come to enjoy and
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
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
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
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
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
> On Jul 16, 2019, at 15:32, rocketnia wrote:
>
> I find it worrying that racket2 would be kicked off with infix syntax
> (something which I think of as an unnecessary sticking point in the way of
> prospective macro writers and language designers, and hence a move *toward*
> elitism *as
Thanks for reminding me of
https://github.com/racket/racket/wiki/Racket2
As it is mostly quite old, I’ve updated it with a link back to the RFC’s
repository.
Kind regards
Stephen
PS see you in London on Friday ;)
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 19:46, Gustavo Massaccesi wrote:
> I always imagined
On Tuesday, July 16, 2019 at 11:46:16 AM UTC-7, gustavo wrote:
>
> I always imagined racket2 as racket with a few minor backward incompatible
> changes, for example make `length` generic, drop `struct`, remove
> guarantees about freshness of results. I.E. Most of
>
I always imagined racket2 as racket with a few minor backward incompatible
changes, for example make `length` generic, drop `struct`, remove
guarantees about freshness of results. I.E. Most of
https://github.com/racket/racket/wiki/Racket2 I also don't like that
`syntax-property` is used to get
David Storrs writes:
> The list is named racket-users, so the question of "who do we want as
> Racket users?" seems pretty on-point to me. Still, I get how it might not
> interest everyone. Maybe just mute this thread?
It's not so much this thread as future threads that are likely to
arrive,
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 5:31 AM Konrad Hinsen
wrote:
> Sam,
>
> > Matthias, I disagree with this. First, we all believe that the Racket
> > community is one of the most important parts of Racket. Given that,
> > how to make it the community we want it to be, and how to welcome as
> > many new
Sam,
Matthias, I disagree with this. First, we all believe that the Racket
community is one of the most important parts of Racket. Given that,
how to make it the community we want it to be, and how to welcome as
many new people to our community as possible, are fundamental to what
we discuss
Another Racketeer here who's been in the community since day 0.
We have various views and people in the community. But our commitment to
making tools and learning available to all, open to all, and catering to
all — what many of us label diversity — is, I hope, demonstrated by our
actions.
Matthias, I disagree with this. First, we all believe that the Racket
community is one of the most important parts of Racket. Given that, how to
make it the community we want it to be, and how to welcome as many new
people to our community as possible, are fundamental to what we discuss on
this
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 11:55 AM Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Jack,
>
> the word “diversity” is inherently political. It is designed as a wedge, a
> tool to separate people into groups and then from each other. It is used as
> a kudgel by one side of the political spectrum to relentlessly hit the
While we're all still figuring out how to best welcome and support
everyone in CS-ish things, maybe it should be mentioned that Racketeers
have some awareness and appreciation of familiar concerns, including
from a research perspective (starting at least 15 years ago):
High school teachers
Hazards of reading email from the top down: Apparently there is a
commitment to keeping #lang racket working. Phew! Thank you, core team!
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 11:54 AM David Storrs wrote:
> In the language of web forums: +1 Insightful to Jack Firth's comments.
>
>
> Back on topic:
> The
Jack,
the word “diversity” is inherently political. It is designed as a wedge, a tool
to separate people into groups and then from each other. It is used as a kudgel
by one side of the political spectrum to relentlessly hit the other side. It
was bad enough to have been told that there were
Jack Firth writes:
> Matthias, I ask that you please not respond to discussion about the
> diversity of the Racket community by saying it's a political topic and
> politics have no place here. That statement alone is political and makes
> many people feel unwelcome, including me.
Likewise... and
In the language of web forums: +1 Insightful to Jack Firth's comments.
Back on topic:
The question that is most important to me is: Once #lang racket2 is
designed and produced and out in the world, will #lang racket still be
actively supported? If not, will there be tooling available to convert
Matthias, I ask that you please not respond to discussion about the
diversity of the Racket community by saying it's a political topic and
politics have no place here. That statement alone is political and makes
many people feel unwelcome, including me.
On the topic of a new syntax: I am
> On Jul 14, 2019, at 1:44 PM, someone wrote:
>
> - I am indeed very for growth in the community, though my main interest
> in growth is in seeing a wider diversity of participants than just
> raw numbers. Obviously other peoples' mileage may vary.
This is politics and politics has no
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 02:10:05PM +0100, Jack Rosenthal wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 08:47 -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 01:22:20PM +0100, Jack Rosenthal wrote:
> > > One of my gripes from writing and reading (reviewing) C code on a daily
> > > basis is that I have a
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 08:47 -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 01:22:20PM +0100, Jack Rosenthal wrote:
> > One of my gripes from writing and reading (reviewing) C code on a daily
> > basis is that I have a hard time remembering the precedence of the
> > operators beyond PEMDAS.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 01:22:20PM +0100, Jack Rosenthal wrote:
>
> One of my gripes from writing and reading (reviewing) C code on a daily
> basis is that I have a hard time remembering the precedence of the
> operators beyond PEMDAS. Things get murky when trying to figure out the
> order of the
I think you make valid points, I just wanted to provide an alternate
opinion...
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 13:44 -0400, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> - The challenge with s-expressions is largely in anxiety with something
>that looks extremely alien. I suspect there's more fear from
>
At Sun, 14 Jul 2019 13:44:27 -0400, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> The context of this email is the proposal by Matthew Flatt that we move
> to an easier-to-accept surface syntax for #lang racket2.
I appreciate your enthusiasm to get started! And I normally appreciate
concrete proposals to
I sent this about 5 minutes before Jay announced
https://github.com/racket/racket2-rfcs :)
--
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
The context of this email is the proposal by Matthew Flatt that we move
to an easier-to-accept surface syntax for #lang racket2.
Matthew Flatt has heard more than enough from me of concern about this
proposal. But I should indicate that I'm highly sympathetic to the
goal. I would like to lay
57 matches
Mail list logo
