On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:49:32PM -0500, Lawrence Bottorff wrote: > I see a huge differential between the high quality of Racket and the fact > that its popularity is low. Then again, perhaps Racket is where Python was > ten years ago, i.e., more than ready for prime-time, "batteries included," > far better than languages X (Perl), Y, and Z . . . but not yet widely > accepted. Then Python began to make big strides.
I'm told that the inventor of python was inspired by Lisp nd Modula 3. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) So I suppose pyython conld be considered to ba part of the Lisp tradition. > > What's latest thinking on Racket To the World? Could a Racket-based on-line > curriculum be set up a-la Udacity or OCW? Also, what's the story with MIT > not using Scheme anymore in its intro class? I heard Cornell and Harvard > use OCaml, of all things. . . . What's so weird abot OCAml. I find it a very effective language to use for lot of things. Its only defienciency is a lack of immediate metarecursion. But it certainly counts as a member in good standing of the functional language family. -- hendrik ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
