[racket] racket vs. racket/base

From: Robby Findler (robby at eecs.northwestern.edu)
Date: Sat Oct 16 17:27:12 EDT 2010

My experience has been the only time I benefit from #lang racket/base
over #lang racket in terms of a noticeable runtime cost is when I'm
writing little scripts and running them via "racket" on the
commandline. FWIW.


On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> 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.
> --Carl
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users

Posted on the users mailing list.