[racket] DrRacket needs work

From: Raoul Duke (raould at gmail.com)
Date: Mon Nov 14 08:36:05 EST 2011

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:19 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi <sk at cs.brown.edu> wrote:
> This is a pretty poor example to illustrate your point, because Racket
> still does not have static type checking.

my bad word choice or understanding of Typed Racket aside, the point
is that some people think static typing is "eminently reasonable"
whereas others don't. sorta like, say, being able to eval a region.

this thread has gotten me seeing one of the brick walls i hit when i
try racket, that was invisible to me before.

i think it would be great if there were a concise place that listed
all the things Racket sees as eminently reasonable, because there
could be people who are trying to get into Racket who absolutely don't
come to the party seeing those things as eminently reasonable at all.
they might change their minds once they see the list and experience
it. but w/out the list they can hit the brick wall of differences of
assumptions about what is eminently reasonable vs. eminently a pain in
the neck.

but only if Racket actually wants to help people get into it.

if such a concise doc exists already, that would be great.


Posted on the users mailing list.