> On Jan 16, 2017, at 8:06 PM, Alexander McLin wrote:
>
> I am not sure, that there is a benefit to creating a .NET package for
> Racket. Will the benefits justify the development investment?
I think so. I see where you’re going and you may get enough mileage out of this
to get a useful com
I understand where you're coming from. My organization is flexible and isn't
ideologically committed to one particular platform. Microsoft's community
promise is just that, a promise. It can be changed or revoked at any time in
the future.
I've been encouraging adoption of open system practices
Thank you Matthias for the historical information, it was interesting to learn
that a porting project was sponsored by Microsoft in .NET's early days. Were
any papers describing the efforts published?
Porting Racket to .NET definitely is ambitious and as you have said, it seems
unlikely .NET ha
This doesn't help anyone who's committed fully to a platform, but if one
is not, or when one has the opportunity to evolve, it should be mentioned...
When an organization emphasizes real open systems (which currently
probably means HTTPS Web services, talking in XML or JSON, and perhaps
SQL, a
At one point I was looking for Racket on .NET and the closest I could find was
the following:
https://github.com/Graham-Pedersen/IronPlot
(it looks like its original name was IronRacket) and a scheme:
https://github.com/leppie/IronScheme
I have only just recovered them from my saved bookmarks and
MS asked us (mostly NEU) to investigate a port of Racket (then PLT Scheme) to
.Net some 15 years ago. (They supported the 4-year project with a generous
financial donation.) In the end, we had to admit defeat. Racket’s GUI framework
(e.g, event spaces), its mapping to the control stack (continu
6 matches
Mail list logo
