This is just one random guy, but it's interesting to see how Racket is perceived.
Excerpts from a conversation on stackoverflow about Racket:
Thanks. And that's why I'm starting to learn to dislike Scheme, despite
everything else. – MCXXIII yesterday
In that case, it's a good thing that Racket isn't Scheme. – John Clements 20
hours ago
I don't know if I'd like to turn to some "fringe" language. Also seems odd to
me to call it a Scheme implementation if it's not meant to be Scheme at all. I
really like standards and Scheme seems to suffer greatly in that area. I think
I may have to switch to some other form of Lisp. Clojure seems potentially nice
at a glance. – MCXXIII 20 hours ago
Ah! You said the magic word! Clojure is a LISP implementation in a very similar
way that Racket is a Scheme implementation. Put differently: if you don't
object to Clojure, there's no good reason to object to Racket. – John Clements
13 hours ago
Racket comes off as "Scheme, but not really" while Clojure comes off as
"Clojure (inspired by Lisp)". At least that's the impression. It's kinda like
how Java was inspired by C/C++ yet Java is Java. Also, I could go learn
INTERCAL too. It wouldn't be very useful aside from the pure experience, and
maybe with INTERCAL that experience would be worth it, but in the case of
Racket I might as well get that exact same experience from something more
"mainstream". So, if my objective is to learn some form of Lisp, I'd go with
one of the three major dialects, not Racket. – MCXXIII 5 hours ago
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Obviously, Racket is still working to define
itself as a separate entity. – John Clements 0 secs ago
You can see the original thread here:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5806222/opening-urls-with-scheme/5811345#5811345
John Clements
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
