https://blog.racket-lang.org/2020/02/racket-on-chez-status.html
Any advancement they make is overcast by their decision to get rid of the s-expression based syntax.
their decision to get rid of the s-expression based syntax
I thought it was a joke but it isn't. Now I understand why my gut feeling had always kept me away from Racket.
It doesn't matter, there's no real lack of good implementations with useful ecosystems. Guile 3.0 has been released in January. There's Gambit-C (and Gerbil) and a few others that I have yet to try.
>>2
I thought they're just making a new language, how could anyone separate Racket and sexps?
their decision to get rid of the s-expression based syntax.
I think that's a dumb decision. No one is going to use a lisp dialect if they wanted to use some other $language instead. And I think S-expressions are the thing that makes lisp dialects easier.
>>4
As far as I know, the Racket language itself has a framework for creating new languages. And that Rhombus (aka Racket2) is just another supported #lang but I might be wrong.
https://beautifulracket.com/appendix/thoughts-on-rhombus.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vFIXjMkwR4
Also, remember M-expressions?
https://web.archive.org/web/20210324084457/http://www.informatimago.com/develop/lisp/com/informatimago/small-cl-pgms/m-expression/
http://xahlee.info/comp/lisp_sans_sexp.html
Also, remember M-expressions?
I do! The pretty neat K language still uses them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-expression#For_K
Racket on Chez is ready for production
This is hilarious! "Production" and "Racket"/"Scheme" are mutually exclusive terms.
>>7
I've done some work with appliances that used embedded microprocessors, Linux and Systemd. I wrote my programs with Chicken Scheme, this included programs that would be traditionally be scripted programs that are intended for scripting the OS functionality.
>>5
youre a dumb decision