Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Racket's goals appear more pedagogical and the effort they put in (which is bloody awesome for a relatively small team, btw) on the pragmatic aspects is to the extent necessary for teaching.

If we, again, ask whether Racket (or any of the features in it such as delimited continuations) can help solve the problems that the Go team wants solved, I still need to scratch my head a bit. For example, V8 has overtaken mzscheme w.r.t. speed and you would (rightly) ask for a comparison with Node today for a class of server applications. (Being a PL buff, I'm pretty familiar with Racket/Haskell, having written and deployed a Scheme interpreter myself.)

I offer another categorization - Go is to design where Racket/Haskell is to research. A good part of design work involves intelligent trade offs. In PL research, you're interested in ideas, new ways of thinking, insights, optimization techniques, etc. You're not (usually) interested in taking a new idea and packaging it so it is digestible to a certain class of programmers. Constant factor speed improvements are also not usually interesting to PL research, but very welcome to the pragmatic programmer. Syntax design, for example, is seldom the highlight of a PL research project.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: