Anonymous user
Category talk:Racket: Difference between revisions
→racket IS scheme
Line 17:
:::: i like that approach. it would certainly work for racket if people think that racket needs its own language entry (i am not convinced of that yet). ideally i'd go even further and group all lisp implementations that way, but that may not be practical with the current structure in rosettacode. (and it would be a lot of work for little gain)
:::: one thing that also speaks against the racket category is that it is only recently renamed from plt-scheme. i doubt anyone would even consider plt-scheme to not be scheme. but if plt-scheme is scheme, then racket must be as well. (unless they changed the language and racket is incompatible to plt-scheme)--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 06:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Racket goes well beyond what other Scheme implementations offer. The difference itself is much bigger than the whole spec of a large language like common lisp. Furthermore, while it is a descendant of "Scheme", it diverged considerably -- to a point where moving code back and forth from Racket to other Schemes requires *porting*. (Note that this does not contradict having R6RS implemented -- it is just a language among many that are implemented in Racket, but in fact it is not used for any of the functionality that comes with Racket.) To make things more concrete, I went over some of the pages in the Category:Racket page -- that addresses the more important question of what would people get from having the racket solution be listed as "Scheme". From the 18 solutions, I counted exactly one (Accumulator factory) which would work in all Schemes, and another (Dot product) that might work on some since it relies on features that are not guaranteed by the standard (and by many implementations). The rest are all pieces of code that have no hope to ever work in any other scheme.
| |||