Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I really don't like the Common Lisp naming and the 2-space nature of the language makes this even worse. The conflict of the implementors appears in many places. I like many things about scheme, but I won't whitewash it's problems.

Non-standard, non-portable racket libraries aren't the answer to scheme's basic nature (though I believe r7rs-large will solve a lot of these issues). More serious dealbreakers in my work are the lack of declare, no built-in OOP, and no spec for optional and keyword parameters.

Scheme has other issues too such as the inability to turn off continuations (they are great in some situations, but can cause performance issues and specifically cause increased memory usage).



Racket's extensive collection of libraries aren't meant to answer anything about Scheme -- they're for Racket. That's why we changed the name.

Racket is, however, a great answer to "is there a Lisp that's both conceptually consistent and has lots of libraries".




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

Search: