A lot of interesting ideas, stewart. For now, I'll just highlight this
one, and a few bulleted comments:
stewart mackenzie wrote on 7/25/19 3:03 PM:
If you want to Racket2 popular make it easy for users to get the programmer's
responsive applications and programmers will come in droves. Drop Chez,
reimplement the Racket interpreter in Rust and target it at WASM.
* I continue to trust Matthew Flatt, et al.'s judgment and direction on
that, for the core group's goals (which I'm still fuzzy on). There've
been signs of diligence throughout.
* You mentioned a conditional, and I think re-emphasized that we all
need to have a really-super-clear shared understanding of Racket's
goals, and how people's various needs fit into that:
https://www.mail-archive.com/racket-users@googlegroups.com/msg41757.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/racket-users@googlegroups.com/msg41799.html
I still don't know how "popular" fits into the goals, for example.
* Regarding WASM, I started mentioning it almost 2 years ago (I've done
various kinds of Web development):
https://www.mail-archive.com/racket-users@googlegroups.com/msg35803.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/racket-users@googlegroups.com/msg36362.html
https://www.mail-archive.com/racket-users@googlegroups.com/msg41716.html
As I said in the last message, I think WASM would almost immediately be
very valuable, but my initial gut feel is to not bet the farm on WASM
alone. It might simplify that question for me, if I had a
really-super-clear understanding of Racket's current goals.
* I want to reiterate the importance of really-super-clear shared
understanding of at least the top-level requirements.
I've been through industry requirements elicitation and rigorous
requirements analysis before, and it's much more difficult than I
would've thought, but also much more helpful than I would've thought.
(And when it's painful, it can be because they're getting down to things
you don't know, or getting into things some people don't want to admit
or agree to. For example, various team members are separately excited
about 10 different possibilities and you have to choose 1-3, customer's
actual needs and priorities are very different than what anyone wants to
build or thinks they should build, you get into culling features that
the product manager and executives have already been talking about, and
various imperfect alignments between organization and individual goals,
etc.)
That's not quite the situation with Racket, but I suspect the Racket
community would still very benefit surprisingly well from merely trying
to unambiguously articulate top-level requirements.
Racket has always been guided first by the goals of the core group,
which is fine. But as we, as a community, try to have more community
involvement, I think we need a really-super-clear articulation and
shared understanding of the top-level requirements. Then we'll see how
that focuses all the discussion for how those top-level requirements are
accomplished.
--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/414a661a-e350-bb55-bbc3-421f09edeb5b%40neilvandyke.org.
