Hi Neil, > I'd instead try to very concisely summarize what we know of the experience
I just don’t have the skills for that. I’ll just remove the mention of John Carmack. Maybe people like yourself and John can add their testimonials about their experiences with Racket. >w switch to a more proven "stack". I *suspect* the whole ‘scaling Racket’ thing is a furfy, and for the vast majority of applications or websites this is never going to be a problem. I don’t *know* if this is true, so I’d welcome some _evidence_. Kind regards, Stephen On Wed, 1 Nov 2017 at 02:31, Neil Van Dyke <[email protected]> wrote: > That Carmack quote alone is missing important context that we now know. > Personally, I'd instead try to very concisely summarize what we know of > the experience (i.e., Carmack found Racket to provide early development > wins sufficient to justify dumping C++ server that already existed, and > a later team moved server implementation back to C++) and to explicitly > reference the first-version-in-Lisp pattern that Paul Graham suggested > around the time he co-founded Y Combinator. (I don't know whether PG > has said more about that since then.) > > Just IMHO, and I could be overstating. Neither of us is a PR person, so > probably we are both going to our intuition of what messages will > resonate with subsets of the audience with whom we are familiar. And we > are familiar with different subsets. > > Regarding Racket scaling for more kinds of production use, there was > some discussion on the email list recently about that. I think that the > Racket community has enough technical expertise to grow/prove the > scalability of Racket for some production needs, but it's enough work > that I doubt it will soon be accomplished as anyone's weekend hobby > project, so I was stuck on the funding problem.[*] One possible way > past the funding problem: startups that use Racket for the > initial/prototype version, and then the resulting investment round means > they can stressfully decide whether&how to go further with Racket or to > switch to a more proven "stack". > > [*] Personally, I've only had funding in Racket for some > mission-critical but very specialized work that's not reusable. The > only thing I can think to say about scalability at the moment is that > all that the generic Web serving stuff ended up custom (mostly due to > legacy architecture evolution, and the custom stuff performed > sufficiently well), but core Racket's `db` PostgreSQL support worked > like a champ when a large system migrated to it from a legacy `libpq` Mz > C extension interface (both alternate PostgreSQL layers being beneath a > versioned object-to-relational schema mapping layer). > > -- Kind regards, Stephen -- Ealing (London), UK -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/CAGHj7-LkqxaatS4dp4pwFs51_xERz7TWuCQ4N6QJrwZjeFBXkQ%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
