Matthew writes: > The idea of a subset of Racket that compiles to this kind of statistically probable subset of JS is very appealing.
Agreed. The way Jens has split it up is that Urlang is a thin, cleaned-up Racket-ish syntax for ES5, with a bit of sugar and a macro capability. Then there's rjs, which includes a runtime, and aims to compile a substantive subset of Racket. Of course there's going to be a trade-off between completeness and runtime-size, etc. > Especially if it can obviate the need or should I say "need" for a JS framework. So, I'm currently looking at some of the "better" JS / HTML / CSS frameworks / libraries with a view to being able to hide the detail and relatively easily spin-up browser-hosted applications. E.g. - CSS / reponsiveness: e.g. Bootstrap - DOM manipulation & binding: e.g Ractive, Mithril - Data structures: e.g. mori - Graphics: e.g. D3 I take it obviating the need for frameworks would essentially mean pulling necessary functionality up into Racket: analogous to writing in Racket rather than using interop to access external e.g. C/C++ libraries from regular Racket. Is that what you mean? Sounds good to me, but more of a "longer term" project. Elm might be a good model for this. Dan -- 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.
