How does it compare to Common Lisp in your opinion?
It doesn't have a standard.
It's shit.
It is associated with criminal rackets, just like the rest of Scheme crime family that disguise themselves as "programming language implementations" to scam the Lisp weenies using social engineering.
I am grateful for them using the stealie as their logo back in the day.
>>5
Copyright violation in line with Scheme's criminal tendencies.
This tool believes in copyright
I bet you buy all your music on itoons
Racket is bloat, similar to R6RS Scheme.
>>8 language bloat is the only good form of bloat, the more language bloat the better.
...thought Bjarne Stroustrup in 1982.
>>9
So long as all the features are independent (meaning no features could reasonably be implemented in terms of or replaced by others) this would be a tollerable attitude.
>>11
That's not language bloat.
>>12
The standard measure seems to be either source mass or having more features than most people need. Both of these could exist given the constraint in >>11 and the second probably wouldn't be a harmful goal.
>>13
That's still not language bloat if it's in >>11's constraints. (for-each) doesn't fit >>11's constraints. It's what language features are the bare minimum for making it x complete. A standard library is not the language but considering it the language or forcing it by standard violates >>11. If the majority of programmers in a language consider it the language most of the libraries will be written horribly. This has to do with a tollerable attitude.
>>14
I would prefer there was no standard library somewhat like OCaml or R5RS. Type, macro, run-time, etc. extensions would all be up for grabs under >>11 which is a very large part of any language.
>>15
With ocaml and revised^5 there's multiple invisible standard libraries inside the standard, one of the worst things a language standard could of done, there is also multiple invisible independent languages for revised^5, not sure about ocaml. For describing where revised^5 is considered harmful with it's standard libraries, let's assume some things about revised^5's model, that it expects a macro system and type system that works on specific theories defined in papers referenced with the lambda papers. The language features for implementing these are a minority of revised^5, it would of been better for those to be as standard libraries, which complete the models for the language. This allows the language to implement it's own models, if an implementer implements the language, they have the complete model without implementing the standard libraries but can further make their own optimised versions quickly for the target later on. This still makes a huge assumption about the parts which are defined in the standard library being perfect for the model, that changing it at all wouldn't make it better or be needed for a certain case. By having a proper language standard, in the case this is wrong it can be solved and the libraries that would break with changes identified easily.
The standard libraries themselves can be bloated for the model. Doing anymore than completing the model and not forking out correctly to limit what needs to be done to complete each part of the model is bloated. If scheme is to be considered a metalanguage, every revised report and the lambda papers are not scheme and scheme does not exist. If the lisp stand point is to be used, read evaluate is the metalanguage and scheme is an language implemented with it, scheme exists as a metaphysical phantom here.
If the language needs extensions as a standard defined extension interface it is broken by design, a read evaluate language allows evaluate to be a hook for writing a macro system without being a real hook. Proper inferred ambiguous type system allows any type to be made and translated for other languages that need types or for optimisations. Run-time is external, anything else is wrong for the language, read evaluate is it's own run-time, it runs externally on it's self not as an extension.
>>16 I dislike your writing style.
>>17 You've been saying this for years. Did you ever figure out this.
(define lol "hahaha racket go (define)")
(+ 9 (* 12 5))Racket is great because there's nothing missing.
#1 2022-02-04 20:29
How does it compare to Common Lisp in your opinion?
#2 2022-02-04 22:19
It doesn't have a standard.
#3 2022-02-05 03:18 (VIP)
It's shit.
#4 2022-02-05 05:40
It is associated with criminal rackets, just like the rest of Scheme crime family that disguise themselves as "programming language implementations" to scam the Lisp weenies using social engineering.
#5 2022-02-05 14:04 (VIP)
I am grateful for them using the stealie as their logo back in the day.
#6 2022-02-06 04:15
>>5
Copyright violation in line with Scheme's criminal tendencies.
#7 2022-02-07 20:40
This tool believes in copyright
I bet you buy all your music on itoons
#8 2022-02-08 13:38
Racket is bloat, similar to R6RS Scheme.
#9 2022-02-08 21:48
>>8 language bloat is the only good form of bloat, the more language bloat the better.
#10 2022-02-08 22:56
...thought Bjarne Stroustrup in 1982.
#11 2022-02-09 02:17 (VIP)
>>9
So long as all the features are independent (meaning no features could reasonably be implemented in terms of or replaced by others) this would be a tollerable attitude.
#12 2022-02-09 06:22 (VIP)
>>11
That's not language bloat.
#13 2022-02-09 14:42 (VIP)
>>12
The standard measure seems to be either source mass or having more features than most people need. Both of these could exist given the constraint in >>11 and the second probably wouldn't be a harmful goal.
#14 2022-02-10 05:05 (VIP)
>>13
That's still not language bloat if it's in >>11's constraints. (for-each) doesn't fit >>11's constraints. It's what language features are the bare minimum for making it x complete. A standard library is not the language but considering it the language or forcing it by standard violates >>11. If the majority of programmers in a language consider it the language most of the libraries will be written horribly. This has to do with a tollerable attitude.
#15 2022-02-10 14:40 (VIP)
>>14
I would prefer there was no standard library somewhat like OCaml or R5RS. Type, macro, run-time, etc. extensions would all be up for grabs under >>11 which is a very large part of any language.
#16 2022-02-11 19:37 (VIP)
>>15
With ocaml and revised^5 there's multiple invisible standard libraries inside the standard, one of the worst things a language standard could of done, there is also multiple invisible independent languages for revised^5, not sure about ocaml. For describing where revised^5 is considered harmful with it's standard libraries, let's assume some things about revised^5's model, that it expects a macro system and type system that works on specific theories defined in papers referenced with the lambda papers. The language features for implementing these are a minority of revised^5, it would of been better for those to be as standard libraries, which complete the models for the language. This allows the language to implement it's own models, if an implementer implements the language, they have the complete model without implementing the standard libraries but can further make their own optimised versions quickly for the target later on. This still makes a huge assumption about the parts which are defined in the standard library being perfect for the model, that changing it at all wouldn't make it better or be needed for a certain case. By having a proper language standard, in the case this is wrong it can be solved and the libraries that would break with changes identified easily.
The standard libraries themselves can be bloated for the model. Doing anymore than completing the model and not forking out correctly to limit what needs to be done to complete each part of the model is bloated. If scheme is to be considered a metalanguage, every revised report and the lambda papers are not scheme and scheme does not exist. If the lisp stand point is to be used, read evaluate is the metalanguage and scheme is an language implemented with it, scheme exists as a metaphysical phantom here.
If the language needs extensions as a standard defined extension interface it is broken by design, a read evaluate language allows evaluate to be a hook for writing a macro system without being a real hook. Proper inferred ambiguous type system allows any type to be made and translated for other languages that need types or for optimisations. Run-time is external, anything else is wrong for the language, read evaluate is it's own run-time, it runs externally on it's self not as an extension.
#17 2022-02-11 23:22 (VIP)
>>16 I dislike your writing style.
#18 2022-02-12 03:55 (VIP)
>>17 You've been saying this for years. Did you ever figure out this.
#19 2024-02-14 06:20
(define lol "hahaha racket go (define)")
(+ 9 (* 12 5))
#20 2024-02-16 21:07
Racket is great because there's nothing missing.