/prog/ - Racket vs Common Lisp

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:55

So you're asking to compare PLT Scheme with Common Lisp?
There's a many Scheme vs CL comparisons and flamewars all over the Internet.

I prefer CL, for a variety of reasons, but I accept that there are plenty of people who prefer Scheme for their reasons, and there are indeed certain things PLT is better at, and certain things CL implementations are better at.

There is no 'best' programming language.

Google if you want a feature comparison, you'll find many.
I could write one myself, but I'd rather avoid another pointless flamewar.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 1:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 2:05

RACKET MY ANUS

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 2:08

MORE LIKE
RICKETS VS CUM ON SCIP
AMIRITE LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLZzz!!11oNE!!1ONE1!

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 3:05

They should have called it something that's easy to search on Google. I get tired of seeing tennis ball rackets.

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 3:07

>>10
PLT Scheme.

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 5:17

>>10
Racket language.

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 7:08

>>10
How about narrowing down your search by adding terms? It's how search engines work.
Not that I've not had the same problem, as a noob trying to work with strings in C.

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 13:38

>>10
Use: plt racket, racket prog lang, racket lang, racket scheme, plt scheme, racket lisp, racket programming language, racket language.

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-19 0:02

/prog/ will be spammed continuously until further notice. we apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 14:52

you can webdev with racket
can you webdev with cl?

Name: PG 2013-08-28 17:14

Yes.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 17:20

>>16
No, we simply do not have the libraries made:
http://www.cliki.net/Current%20recommended%20libraries
http://www.cliki.net/Web
http://www.cliki.net/Networking

I am sorry we could not be of any use.

‫William Newman --

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 18:37

Racket is for kidz. Common Lisp is where it's at.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 20:21

I've worked with both scheme and CL (but not racket). Does racket support macros? And can the code be compiled down (like CL or chicken scheme)?

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 23:37

check 'em

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 23:50

>>22
checked.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 1:13

>>20
Racket has common lisp-style macros, scheme syntax-case/syntax-rules macros, and more.

Racket can be compiled to C or to interpreter, with or without JIT.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 3:34

>>23
syntax-case is good enough to do lispy macros.

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:21

>>23
>>24
So seeing that, why isn't racket more popular? Everyone loves scheme + CL, but why not racket?

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:25

I feel dirty whenever I use racket

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:32

>>26
Why do you feel dirty? Is it because its not glorious lisp?

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:33

racket is shit
/thread

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:58

>>28
Get rek't. Tell me why its shit

Racket vs Common Lisp

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:09

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:18

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:32

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:55

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-14 9:18

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 1:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 2:05

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 2:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 3:05

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 3:07

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 5:17

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 7:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 13:38

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-19 0:02

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 14:52

Name: PG 2013-08-28 17:14

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 17:20

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 18:37

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 20:21

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 23:37

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 23:50

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 1:13

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 3:34

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:21

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:25

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:32

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:33

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:58

Racket vs Common Lisp

1 Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:09

2 Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:18

3 Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:32

4 Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:55

5 Name: Anonymous 2010-06-14 9:18

7 Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 1:35

8 Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 2:05

9 Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 2:08

10 Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 3:05

11 Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 3:07

12 Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 5:17

13 Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 7:08

14 Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 13:38

15 Name: Anonymous 2013-01-19 0:02

16 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 14:52

17 Name: PG 2013-08-28 17:14

18 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 17:20

19 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 18:37

20 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 20:21

21 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 23:37

22 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 23:50

23 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 1:13

24 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 3:34

25 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:21

26 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:25

27 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:32

28 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:33

29 Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:58

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:09

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:18

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:32

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-13 23:55

Name: Anonymous 2010-06-14 9:18

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 1:35

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 2:05

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 2:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 3:05

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 3:07

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 5:17

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 7:08

Name: Anonymous 2011-05-08 13:38

Name: Anonymous 2013-01-19 0:02

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 14:52

Name: PG 2013-08-28 17:14

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 17:20

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 18:37

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 20:21

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 23:37

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-28 23:50

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 1:13

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 3:34

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:21

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:25

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:32

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:33

Name: Anonymous 2013-08-29 20:58