But is it Racket shit?
What's wrong with Racket?
>>2
Racket is the Scheme which most undermines standard complaince and cross-implementation tooling. Every Scheme does this some, and it may be more productive to ask which does this least rather than which does it most. Would anyone like to comment on this?
>>2,3
A deviation I find annoying is that pairs are immutable and you need to use the completely separate structure mcons to have mutable pairs like every other Lisp.
>>3
Racket, the language, does not claim to be a Scheme, but a descendant of it:
Depending on how you look at it, Racket is a programming language—a dialect of Lisp and a descendant of Scheme; ...
(From https://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/intro.html )
Racket, the system, has a R6RS language that is a Scheme, and it mostly conforms to the standard, with some exceptions that don't look that drastic to me:
https://docs.racket-lang.org/r6rs/r6rs-mod.html
https://docs.racket-lang.org/r6rs/conformance.html
>>5
I was aware of the standard conforming #lang, and even that it's no longer considered (PLT)Scheme. Early on they adopted a well meaning policy of ``embrace and exteninguish'' which is universal among Scheme implementations to varying degrees.
>>5,6
The first paragraph of this page is ironic: ( https://racket-lang.org/new-name.html ) but correct.
Which scheme implementation most encourages portability.
My bet is there will be an R6RS with SRFI 18 (Threads), 106 (Sockets), and 170 (POSIX) and without custom tooling besides a debugger within the year, and certainly by the end of next year.
rackets fucking suxks
idk. The batteries included aspect of it is nice. Having sqlite and http available without doing anything special makes web app building super easy.
>>8
My bet is a practical lisp os on lisp machine in 10 years.
>>9
Almost as much as crips