#racket

/

      • pera joined the channel
      • kefin_ joined the channel
      • endobson has quit
      • endobson joined the channel
      • dented42 has quit
      • pierpa has quit
      • pierpa joined the channel
      • dented42 joined the channel
      • Welkin has quit
      • jao has quit
      • SenasOzys joined the channel
      • mahmudov joined the channel
      • Sgeo__ joined the channel
      • swickrotation joined the channel
      • badkins has quit
      • pierpa has quit
      • dented42 has quit
      • pierpal has quit
      • pierpal joined the channel
      • pierpal has quit
      • pierpal joined the channel
      • surya joined the channel
      • skapata has quit
      • pagurus joined the channel
      • pagurus` has quit
      • swickrotation has quit
      • mizu_no_oto joined the channel
      • Lowl3v3l joined the channel
      • surya has quit
      • pera joined the channel
      • mbuf joined the channel
      • kefin_ joined the channel
      • dustyweb has quit
      • YuGiOhJCJ joined the channel
      • gour joined the channel
      • endobson has quit
      • slemonide joined the channel
      • wingsorc has quit
      • xkapastel joined the channel
      • gour
        morning
      • i'm considering whether to learn/use racket or julia for my hobby programming and yesterday found a post with some criticism of julia: http://luthaf.fr/julia-some-criticism.html, so wonder how does racket look like in comparison? based on htdp2e book which i skimmed and everything i see about regard, i assume it's does scale for bigger applications and it's not suitable for shorter scripts only which might be the case with julia...iow. racket looks as more
      • 'general' programming language, while julia mostly does cover scientific usage...still any info in regard would be helpful?
      • slemonide has quit
      • dan_f has quit
      • widp joined the channel
      • aw-
        gour: it's like comparing apples and oranges
      • gour
        aw-: some more light?
      • aw-
        gour: are you familiar with other programming languages?
      • gour
        aw-: yes, imperative languages which i dif long ago, (fortran, pascal, C, C++...) played some time ago with haskell and i liked FP concepts, but haven't grokked monads...what i like about scheme/racket is its apparent simplicity & power at the same time...
      • aw-
        oh perfect
      • in that case, welcome to lisp land, you won't look back haha
      • gour
        aw-: my slight concern with racket is whether i can use it with drracket/vim since i certainly gave up on emacs - few times experienced slight wrist pain which is simply not there when using vim
      • i've found out there is neovim client for racket using lsp...maybe it could be good-enough
      • aw-
        gour: 4 years ago i was roughly in the same spot as you are now, so i may be biased
      • oskarkv joined the channel
      • gour
        aw-: i do not mind bias...i'm asking in #racket
      • aw-
        gour: there's a kind of odd leap you need to take to get into a lisp-based language. Since you're already gone through the motions with haskell/fortran/C++/etc, and now evaluating Julia, I can only say you'll greatly enjoy taking that leap away from what seems familiar. However if you don't have any specific projects in mind, it could take a while to "get up to speed". Just writing a "todo" app won't be satisfying or sufficient enough to
      • get you into the language.
      • a lot of people give up or never become proficient for that reason
      • if you write code in your work/career, and you start with Racket as a hobby, i can almost guarantee you will start doing everything you can do use it in your work/career as well. That's how much you'll enjoy it... and like i said, you won't look back.
      • gour
        aw-: (un)fortunately i'm not coding for my work/career, but have a need to do some utilities (e.g. parsing files etc. for my workflow) and have a concrete project in mind which involves writing desktop (i do not like browser-JS crap) gui app and racket's DSL for gui is a strong 'pro' in that regard
      • thanks a lot for your input!
      • aw-
        gour: as an example, if I look at the comparison article you posted, you'll likely not encounter "Disillusion" or "Acceptance". Worst case you may end up looking at other lisps for more performance or whatever, but you won't sit there saying "I wonder if Go would be better for this?"
      • gour
        :-)
      • surya joined the channel
      • jboy
        gour: I'm just getting into Racket and I use it without emacs.
      • I have slimv set up in vim, but I also really don't mind working in DrRacket.
      • mbuf has left the channel
      • gour
        jboy: great, so vim is ok?
      • aw-: migrating to Chez runtime in the future should improve racket's performance as well, right?
      • jboy: have you tried vim-mode for drracket?
      • aw-
        gour: seems like it, but you shouldn't worry about performance at this point ;) and if yes, well just use Chez - problem solved.
      • mahmudov joined the channel
      • tilpner
        "It would be nice if porting to Chez Scheme made every aspect of Racket magically faster. It hasn’t done that, but we have plenty of room for improvement"
      • jboy
        Yes, vim works. I've tried the vim mode but those kinds of things never quite do the trick for me.
      • gour: ^
      • bartbes joined the channel
      • pera has quit
      • dddddd joined the channel
      • epony joined the channel
      • gour
        thanks
      • ZigPaw joined the channel
      • kefin_ has quit
      • kefin_ joined the channel
      • ZigPaw joined the channel
      • soegaard joined the channel
      • winny has quit
      • winny joined the channel
      • skapata joined the channel
      • vraid joined the channel
      • jao joined the channel
      • ZigPaw has quit
      • ZigPaw joined the channel
      • gour joined the channel
      • zigpaw joined the channel
      • zigpaw joined the channel
      • ziyourenxiang joined the channel
      • FernandoBasso joined the channel
      • buyfn joined the channel
      • oskarkv has quit
      • oskarkv joined the channel
      • buyfn has quit
      • soegaard has quit
      • BitPuffin joined the channel
      • jaredross joined the channel
      • jaredross has left the channel
      • iyzsong joined the channel
      • jaredross joined the channel
      • jaredross
        Hi, I am dying trying to load a file into another file. I am trying to go through SICP and I want to split them into two files. And the googling isn't working in my case. I am using #lang sicp...
      • styx joined the channel
      • jaredross has quit
      • jaredross joined the channel
      • pseudo__ has quit
      • soegaard joined the channel
      • I figured it out with (#%require racket/include) (include "file path"), thanks
      • iyzsong-x joined the channel
      • styx has quit
      • TCZ joined the channel
      • jaredross has quit
      • pierpal has quit
      • acarrico joined the channel
      • orivej joined the channel
      • kefin_ joined the channel
      • dustyweb joined the channel
      • dustyweb has quit
      • dustyweb joined the channel
      • dbmikus joined the channel
      • pierpal joined the channel
      • Lowl3v3l has quit
      • TCZ has quit
      • jaredross joined the channel
      • pierpal has quit
      • pierpal joined the channel
      • mahmudov joined the channel
      • widp
        I want to learn a new language and I am trying to choose between racket and chicken scheme.
      • what scares about racket is that it is too big and the reason I plan on learning a new language is because I want to learn in programming language theory in depth.
      • gnomon
        widp, may I offer some advice there?
      • widp
        yes please.
      • dustyweb has quit
      • dustyweb joined the channel
      • gnomon
        widp, I know what you mean about worrying about a language being very big, and how that can be a discouragement: but try not thinking of the language surface area like water that you have to drink - think of it like water that you have to swim in.
      • widp
        I see what you are saying, but the whole reason I want to learn scheme is because of its simplicity.
      • gnomon
        The very, very nice thing about Racket is that it's structured so that if you're not using a particular feature at the time, you get to just... not care about it. It's very unlikely that it'll bite you unawares. It doesn't really matter how deep the water is because you're only using the top of it.
      • well
      • That's the reason I'm making the point: the Scheme _language spec_ is simple, but that doesn't actually mean that _programming Scheme_ is simple. It's like saying that the crystalline structure of steel is very simple so that makes it an approachable building material: sure, that perception is correct, but it doesn't lead to that conclusion.
      • widp
        and I am conflicted because racket seems to be a a testing ground for programming language theory, so it fits into my plan that way.
      • gnomon
        And when you're actually programming in Scheme or in Racket, it's not the language spec simplicity or complexity that matters, it's how it works in practice - and you'll likely stub your toes less often with Racket.
      • Racket is a testing ground for PL theory, yes, but it's not _only_ that.
      • Anyhow, I don't want to talk you into further analysis paralysis - I hope I didn't contribute to that. Either way, whichever one you start with, you'll find that most of what you learn is applicable in the other, at least for the first few months.