On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 8:49 PM, Alex Harsanyi <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think Racket is a really good language and can be directly used to write > useful applications. Yet new users are encouraged to start using the most > difficult to understand feature of Racket for their simplest of projects. >
At the risk of going off topic, I would not consider macros the most difficult to understand feature of Racket (especially given the competition from continuations, various concurrency and parallelism constructs, namespaces and eval, inspectors ...). I found syntax-rules style macros a fairly easy step from the style of reasoning about evaluation by substitution of expressions encouraged by HtDP. And syntax-parse makes it easy to address robustness concerns. > > `prefix-in` is an old kludge for an old idea that, AFAIK, is no longer > > considered as good an idea as it used to be. I don't object to prefix-in sometimes, but I would not recommend writing modules in the style of parser-tools/lex-sre (which re-defines things like +) or those documented under http://docs.racket-lang.org/web-server-internal/dispatchers.html (which each export a function named make, even though you will almost always want the make function from more than one such module, making them virtually unusable without prefix-in or rename-in). -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
