[ message quoted in reversed for obvious reasons ]
On Oct 16, 2015, at 7:18 AM, Konrad Hinsen <konrad.hin...@fastmail.net> wrote: > Matthias Felleisen writes: >> People wish to conduct a discourse about a domain in the language >> of their domain, and the more we enable the creation of languages, >> the closer to the domain language(s) we get. >> >> In the end though, all of these linguistic disconnects can be >> bridged with a bit of reading code and documentation. > > Exactly, just like for human languages. An added condition for > programming languages is interoperability: I am fine with reading > someone else's code in a different dialect, but I certainly do not > want to rewrite it in my own dialect just to be able to use it. > > For me the strongest point of Racket is that it encourages linguistic > diversity while maintaining (nearly enforcing) interoperability. My > dream language environment would go one step further and provide a > second more low-level interoperability layer for performance-oriented > dialects (C/Fortran style). Does the existing FFI provide you with enough efficiency when needed? ;; ------------------------------------------------------------ Onward, to the fun part. >> [I am using past tense because I am sure Fortran is kind of dead >> now :-).] > > There are probably more active Fortran programmers than active Racket > programmers at this time. If that's all you guys can come up with (ref to Fortran article), then I am removing the brackets from my original message and apologize for beating a dead horse. Even Fortran doesn't deserve this. -- Matthias -- 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
