Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Does modern Racket have anything comparable to Clojure's collection primitives?

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6300845

Also, yes, there are generic "sequence" operations which you can use to abstract away a type of a collection you use. There are lazy sequences too, although they are not the default. There is also a set of very powerful "for" forms, which are an alternative to recursion when traversing sequences (and can function as sequence comprehensions, too).

> and Scheme emphasizes simplicity of implementation. But it still bums me out.

There is a reason why Racket name was changed from PLT Scheme. Racket outgrow Scheme some time ago and continues to grow still. It is "Scheme with batteries included", which means it's not Scheme anymore. But it makes it a great language for practical applications. It's not that great for embedding, though, while normal Schemes are.

Anyway, I find Racket to be the most impressive language I've seen until now. It could use some more developers working on it, but that's all it needs to become on par with Clojure - or any other language for that matter. This makes it's design truly impressive, in my opinion at least.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: