On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:38 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> 2. Could you point me to a criteria that classify Racket as a 'fringe'
> language
> and Clojure as a non-fringe language?
This is no criterion, but it is suggestive:
http://www.google.com/insights/search/#cat=5&q=racket%20-%20tennis%
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 8:02 AM, J. Ian Johnson wrote:
> Hello all. I have a historical question about quoted constants. Does anyone
> know why '1 = 1? My intuition is that this is an artifact of conflating quote
> with list constructors. Is that indeed the case?
I doubt it. More likely it was
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 10:48 AM, John Clements
wrote:
>
> So, if I'm reading this correctly, we've gone from ~590K lines of C to about
> ~340K lines of C. That's amazing.
Something is wrong. In your listing, the only two lines that have changed are
these:
8404 22017 233781 ./racket/src/t
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> In the case I have, though, I want the sequence to be empty. The
> problem is that these bodies -- (let () ...), (parameterize () ...),
> etc. -- are used for a lot of different things. A macro may splice in
> a sequence that is intended to
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Neil Toronto wrote:
> If I get a vote, +1/2 from me.
>
> My vote isn't +1 because I'd rather see a syntactic restriction removed:
> make the inside of a `begin' an internal definition context. Then the change
> would happen in every similar macro at once.
>
> Woul
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Neil Toronto wrote:
>
> In my defense, I was talking about framerate, not total or average cost of
> memory management.
That is very different situation.
> Games are really almost real-time apps.
I'd say that they *are* real-time apps. You really want to be
pr
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:53:21 -0700, Joe Marshall wrote:
>> I'm surprised that racket3m uses page protection. Taking a hardware trap
>> can often be thousands of times slower than taking an inline conditional
>> bra
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 7:05 AM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> Catching up with some mail.
>
> Neil wrote:
>
>> Avoiding allocation reduces GC collects, which reduces stutters and hitches.
>
> My (possibly old) understanding of GC and mutation tell me that this is one
> of those prejudices that pr
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:30 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
>
> My experience teaching Scheme beginners is that Lisp-style prefix for
> arithmetic is NOT a problem; they get the hang of it quickly. It's
> when things start to nest and parens start to add on that they start
> to get frustrated.
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Everett wrote:
> I've always thought the problem was the parens.
I don't believe this. If the parens were the problem, then why didn't
M-expressions gain popularity? Why didn't CGOL? Why didn't Dylan?
Why hasn't *any* alternative syntax helped? (Honu, anyone?)
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
wrote:
> Quoting from our Flapjax paper (pg 12):
> This means that instead of
>
> var name = calmE(changes($B("name")), 300);
>
> developers can write
>
> var name = $B("name").changes().calmE(300);
>
> which is arguably more readable than
11 matches
Mail list logo
