Racket v5.0
Eli Barzilay
With Racket, you can script command shells and web servers; you can
quickly prototype animations and complex GUIs; regexps and threads
are here to serve you. To organize your systems, you can mix and
match classes, modules or components. Best of all, you start
without writing down types. If you later wish to turn your script
into a program, equip your Racket modules with explicit type
declarations as you wish. And Racket doesn't just come as a typed
variant; you can also write your modules in a purely functional and
lazy dialect.
Racket comes in so many flavors because Racket is much more than a
standard scripting language or a plain programming language. Racket
supports language extensibility to an unequaled degree. A Racket
programmer knows that making up a new language is as easy as writing
a new library.
To help you start quickly, Racket includes batteries in all shapes
and sizes, most importantly, extensive documentation and all kinds
of libraries.
Racket occupies a unique position between research and practice. It
inherits many major ideas from language research, among them type
safety (when the type system says that x is a number, then at
runtime it always is a number) and memory safety (when some memory
is reclaimed by the garbage collector it is impossible to still have
a reference to it). At the same time, user demand governs rigid
adherence to purely theoretical principles.
Racket, formerly PLT Scheme, is a product of over 15 years of
development. Although Racket starts with a mature software base and an
established user community, its new name reflects our view that this is
just the beginning of Racket's evolution.
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
Pascal Costanza
> Racket, formerly PLT Scheme, is a product of over 15 years of
> development. Although Racket starts with a mature software base and an
> established user community, its new name reflects our view that this is
> just the beginning of Racket's evolution.
If I remember correctly, members of the PLT Scheme community were among
the strongest supporters of R6RS Scheme [1] - and now they appear to
abandon R6RS, at least that's what it looks like. What's the reasoning
behind that?
Pascal
[1] See http://www.r6rs.org/ratification/results.html and also
http://blog.plt-scheme.org/2007/06/r6rs-is-perfect.html for example.
--
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/
Rob Warnock
+---------------
| Eli Barzilay wrote:
| > Racket, formerly PLT Scheme, is a product of over 15 years of
| > development. Although Racket starts with a mature software base and an
| > established user community, its new name reflects our view that this is
| > just the beginning of Racket's evolution.
|
| If I remember correctly, members of the PLT Scheme community were among
| behind that?
First, AFAICT, Racket *is* PLT Scheme -- it's just a name change
[e.g., DrScheme is now DrRacket, MrEd is now GRacket, etc.].
Second, R6RS & R6RS are still supported, see the 2nd paragraph here:
http://www.racket-lang.org/new-name.html
PLT Scheme is a Racket
Sure, it has parentheses, uses the keyword lambda, provides lexical
scope, and emphasizes macros - but don't be fooled. PLT Scheme is no
minimalist embodiment of 1930s math or 1970s technology. PLT Scheme is
a cover for a gang of academic hackers who want to fuse cutting-edge
programming-language research with everyday programming. They draw you
in with the promise of a simple and polite little Scheme, but soon
you'll find yourself using modules, contracts, keyword arguments,
classes, static types, and even curly braces.
Racket is a Scheme
Racket is still a dialect of Lisp and a descendant of Scheme. The
tools developed by PLT will continue to support R5RS, R6RS, the old
mzscheme environment, Typed Scheme, and more. At the same time,
instead of having to say "PLT's main variant of Scheme," programmers
can now simply say "Racket" to refer to the specific descendant of
Scheme that powers PLT's languages and libraries.
...
-Rob
-----
Rob Warnock <rp...@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607
Eli Barzilay
> Pascal Costanza <p...@p-cos.net> wrote:
> +---------------
> | Eli Barzilay wrote:
> | > Racket, formerly PLT Scheme, is a product of over 15 years of
> | > development. Although Racket starts with a mature software base and an
> | > established user community, its new name reflects our view that this is
> | > just the beginning of Racket's evolution.
> |
> | If I remember correctly, members of the PLT Scheme community were among
> | the strongest supporters of R6RS Scheme - and now they appear to
> | abandon R6RS, at least that's what it looks like. What's the reasoning
> | behind that?
> +---------------
>
> First, AFAICT, Racket *is* PLT Scheme -- it's just a name change
> [e.g., DrScheme is now DrRacket, MrEd is now GRacket, etc.].
> Second, R6RS & R6RS are still supported, see the 2nd paragraph here:
>
> http://www.racket-lang.org/new-name.html
Yes -- this page is the explanation we prepared for such questions.
Pascal Costanza
> rp...@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:
>
>> Pascal Costanza<p...@p-cos.net> wrote:
>> +---------------
>> | Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> |> Racket, formerly PLT Scheme, is a product of over 15 years of
>> |> development. Although Racket starts with a mature software base and an
>> |> established user community, its new name reflects our view that this is
>> |> just the beginning of Racket's evolution.
>> |
>> | If I remember correctly, members of the PLT Scheme community were among
>> | the strongest supporters of R6RS Scheme - and now they appear to
>> | abandon R6RS, at least that's what it looks like. What's the reasoning
>> | behind that?
>> +---------------
>>
>> First, AFAICT, Racket *is* PLT Scheme -- it's just a name change
>> [e.g., DrScheme is now DrRacket, MrEd is now GRacket, etc.].
>>
>> http://www.racket-lang.org/new-name.html
>
> Yes -- this page is the explanation we prepared for such questions.
Thanks a lot for the link, this certainly explains a few things.
However, in the blog posting I referred to, the following claim was made:
"Our choice is quite simple: move forward as a community with some
amount of convergence (r6rs) or split into dozens of mutually
incompatible sub-communities (status quo, including SRFIs)."
My impression is that Racket made the second choice: It seems to
encourage programming in dialects that are incompatible with R6RS, so it
doesn't appear to be a good community player. Is that a wrong impression?
Pascal
Shriram Krishnamurthi
> encourage programming in dialects that are incompatible with R6RS,
> so it doesn't appear to be a good community player. Is that a wrong
> impression?
While we appreciate your wanting to understand this name change, I do
think we've said most of what we want to say on our naming page.
Beyond that, I think over the long term our actions will say a lot
more than endless debates right now.
Overall, we're interested in programming, not politics (as, I imagine,
are you). Perhaps there is a concrete question you had that has
pragmatic consequences for actual programming, which you meant to ask
instead? We'd love to focus on those!
Shriram
Nils M Holm
> Overall, we're interested in programming, not politics (as, I imagine,
> are you). Perhaps there is a concrete question you had that has
> pragmatic consequences for actual programming, which you meant to ask
> instead? We'd love to focus on those!
This is good to hear!
I don't know why exactly, but making clear that the language is
*not* Scheme sparks my interest. (I stopped using MzScheme after
version 2.09.) Racket may allow people to enjoy the beauty of
Scheme without having to care too much about labels and standards.
It reminds me a bit of TurboPascal in the 80's. It was Pascal, but
it was also more than that. It helped programmers to get things
done. Racket sounds equally useful.
I like your decision. Congratulations!
--
Nils M Holm | http://t3x.org
Bakul Shah
Racket programmers are Racketeers, of course.
This is troubling.... These people can now be accused of
Racketeering and any company that uses them can now be
considered a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization.
The RICO act may apply. Even Feds might get on their cdr.
People are going to think this is just some sort of Ponzi
Scheme. Nice going guys!
[Tongue firmly in cheek]
Eli Barzilay
(The generic command-line tool for racket is called `raco' -- for a
good while there, it was called `rico'...)
tfgordon
> However, in the blog posting I referred to, the following claim was made:
>
> "Our choice is quite simple: move forward as a community with some
> amount of convergence (r6rs) or split into dozens of mutually
> incompatible sub-communities (status quo, including SRFIs)."
>
> My impression is that Racket made the second choice: It seems to
> encourage programming in dialects that are incompatible with R6RS, so it
> doesn't appear to be a good community player. Is that a wrong impression?
What community? R6RS failed to bring people together into a
community. On the contrary, it sadly push people further apart. The
R7RS process has started, but it is very uncertain what will come out
of this process. And it will surely take years.
I don't blame the PLT folks for deciding to free themselves from this
chaos and going their own way.
Good luck!
Tom Gordon
Pascal Costanza
>> My impression is that Racket made the second choice: It seems to
>> encourage programming in dialects that are incompatible with R6RS,
>> so it doesn't appear to be a good community player. Is that a wrong
>> impression?
>
> While we appreciate your wanting to understand this name change, I do
> think we've said most of what we want to say on our naming page.
> Beyond that, I think over the long term our actions will say a lot
> more than endless debates right now.
>
> Overall, we're interested in programming, not politics (as, I imagine,
> are you).
I'm interested in both.
> Perhaps there is a concrete question you had that has
> pragmatic consequences for actual programming, which you meant to ask
> instead? We'd love to focus on those!
Not this time.
gavino
nice!
did the plt scheme webserver make the journey?
gavino
outstanding youtube video about PLT scheme, the one at the end of the
day of presentations, perhaps old now
gavino
do R6 macroes give scheme the same macro power common lisp has? I was
told so in irc but wanted some assurnace, and yes I am largely
ignorant and am getting words from paul grahams site, troubleing words
about common lisp macroes being superior....and schemers told me R6
leveled the playing field.....
