Matthias Felleisen wrote at 11/05/2012 10:14 PM:
* racket/base (for scripting)
* racket (for programming)
After thinking about it, I think I see what you mean with the
distinction between ``for scripting'' and ``for programming''. But I
think this might be confusing.
(Explanation... I have been thinking of it the other way around: "#lang
racket" is what you use when you want to just start typing and have
everything available and type less text, in a scripting-language kind of
way, and "#lang racket/base" is what one uses when putting a little more
care into engineering, and doesn't mind the extra thinking and text.
For example, when making a reusable PLaneT package, I think it's good
practice to go to the extra effort to use "#lang racket/base" instead of
"#lang racket"; otherwise, you doom all users of your package to pull in
all of "#lang racket", which they might have engineering reasons not to
do. But I guess you were speaking only of process load times -- that
people would use "racket/base" so that standalone ``scripting'' programs
would load quicker from the command line -- not about a quick-scripting
nature of the programming activity?)
Neil V.
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
