Racket: Lisp for Learning

Re:Racket: Lisp for Learning by JoelMcCracken on Thursday August 08, 2019 @11:40AM (#20645527)

Very much an overreaction. The whole point of Racket is to support multiple syntaxes. The idea that a future Racket would NOT support the current syntax seems absurd.

But really there are lots of other, better reasons to use JS over Racket for a major commercial project, which may or may not be actually a good call, but a new proposed syntax is not one of them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Racket: Lisp for Learning by traderjane on Thursday August 08, 2019 @11:46AM (#20645571)

But where will the culture of Racket go? How will the educational texts, documentation, and general conversations go?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Racket: Lisp for Learning by JoelMcCracken on Thursday August 08, 2019 @12:00PM (#20645705)

Why does the same conversation not come up when discussing typed racket? Is the introduction of a static type system really less culture-shaking than surface syntax?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Racket: Lisp for Learning by gus_massa on Thursday August 08, 2019 @12:57PM (#20646223)

The name "racket2" is too strong.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Racket: Lisp for Learning by Tomte on Thursday August 08, 2019 @03:28PM (#20647748)

I suppose because that's a niche dialect, an experiment if you will, not the anointed successor.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Racket: Lisp for Learning by dmix on Thursday August 08, 2019 @11:54AM (#20645655)

They could do an Elixir style fork instead? Although a pure syntax change isn’t as significant as what Elixir changed.

[ Parent | on HN ]