On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 8:59:26 AM UTC+8, Neil Van Dyke wrote: > h...@o....org wrote on 08/23/2017 06:56 PM: > > > Wouldn't making a DSL be overkill? > > No. In Racket, a DSL (aka minilanguage, syntax extensions, or macros) > can be a very small implementation effort that does exactly what one > wants, in a very maintainable way.
As someone who managed to write a 30000 like Racket application without using macros, I think they are overrated for application development. Macros are a powerful and necessary feature for designing or extending a language, but most people are better served by just using existing, well documented languages. 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. > > Isn't this the sort of thing that should be handled by `prefix-in`? > > `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. Do you have any references for this statement? I personally prefer short function names that I can prefix as needed versus littering my code with "author-package-foo" function calls. Is 'prefix-in' a deprecated feature? Best Regards, Alex. -- 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.
