[racket-dev] racket vs. scheme vs. clojure (as it appears to others)

(FWIW, I don't have any strong issues with Java, but refering to "the
best parts of Java" is asking to be made into a joke.)


Yesterday, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> Justin is right other than the Java part.  Eli is right with the
> amendment of -1 for the suggestion that Java has good parts worth
> borrowing. (-:
> 
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> > 20 minutes ago, Justin Zamora wrote:
> >> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 3:20 AM, D Herring <dherring at tentpost.com> wrote:
> >> > You might emphasize that Racket is a "new language, borrowing the
> >> > best parts of Scheme (and other languages?) and extending it with
> >> > these features"...
> >>
> >> A sentence like that would be a good replacement for the awful,
> >> "Racket is a programming language" currently on the front page of
> >> racket-lang.org Perhaps something like "Racket is a new language
> >> that borrows the best parts of Scheme, Java, and other languages and
> >> extends them with advanced features such as contracts, types,
> >> user-defined languages, a complete GUI framework and other modern
> >> features."
> >
> > -1 for any mention of Java.

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!