[racket] racket vs. racket/base

From: Carl Eastlund (cce at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 16 17:09:08 EDT 2010

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:31 PM, Neil Van Dyke <neil at neilvandyke.org> wrote:
> Sam Phillips wrote at 10/16/2010 02:52 PM:
>> Is there a useful rule of thumb for deciding if a module should be in
>> the racket language or the racket/base language?
> I, for one, always use "racket/base".
> In a sidebar alongside the table of contents of the Reference (nope, it's
> not an ad, nor a tangential aside) is a summary of what's in "racket" beyond
> "racket/base".
> Saying "#lang racket" and getting *everything* gives good demo, I guess, but
> I prefer to have a smaller base language, and to explicitly identify within
> each module what additions to the base language are used.

I, on the other hand, prefer to use "racket" unless I'm writing
something whose clients might be concerned about the extra space or
time required to compile and load it.  I use the non-base features of
Racket enough that I don't want to have to write several requires each
time just to get them.

It all depends on what kind of code you happen to be writing.


Posted on the users mailing list.