[racket] `def' ?

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Thu May 10 19:40:37 EDT 2012

Four hours ago, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> I will assert something about readability: 
>  Racket programs look heavy when compared with Haskell programs. 
> This is probably true for Python instead of Haskell, too. It is also
> true for ML. I conjecture that part of that heaviness comes from
> wide lines, long names, deep nesting. Who knows. I don't even know
> how to measure this kind of property.
> At this point, I can express certain ideas more easily in Racket
> than in Haskell, Python, ML or whatever, which is why I am fine. But
> if this advantage ever disappeared, heaviness would definitely be a
> factor to weigh.

+1 in general.

More specifically, shortening `define' to `def' does sound like an
improvement, but a minor one compared to possible other changes around
definition forms.  (In addition, it's not just a straightforward
change, since `define' has many relatives.)

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

Posted on the users mailing list.