Am 13.10.2017 um 00:20 schrieb Andrew Gwozdziewycz: > Racket doesn't play well with existing code bases (except C things) > and so my hypothesis is simply that to gain adoption of Racket, you > need to solve problems that aren't in the "production path." Good > thing there are *lots* of those! All those Python scripts you have? > All of those Perl scripts that no one understands anymore? Those are, > in my opinion, the way in.
Funny story: That's how I cam back to Racket/Scheme. Several years ago I worked on a web application written in Common Lisp. I needed some "electronic duct tape" work done. I didn't use Common Lisp because of its slow startup time and I was unhappy with shell scripts either. Therefore I remembered that there was PLT Scheme/Racket around with "batteries included". So nowadays lot of these tasks are now done using Racket. Daniel -- 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.
