[racket] Python creep

The other day I took a look at the on-line university Udacity. I was
impressed by the computer-oriented courses they offered . . . until I
realized they are all based around Python . . . with no apparent way to
substitute something like Racket. Udacity is a Python-only shop.

I realize the choice of language is highly political and controversial, but
I've drunk the functional Kool-aid and would, therefore, feel stupid if
some course or academic program I was taking required the likes of Python
or Java of me.

But then it seems functional programming languages just can't seem to get
any real traction out there in the so-called real world -- yet. I know this
issue has been discussed, but obviously the problem isn't solving itself
when things like Udacity and MIT moving away from Scheme happen. I've read
and re-read the things from Ron Garret (Lisp at JPL) and Peter Norvig about
why Python instead of Lisp -- but they're not saying Python is a better
language than Lisp, they only seem to be caving to politics. Norvig says
more or less "I used to think Lisp was the best language. Now I realize
Python can do lots of cool things too." . . . but that's hardly a ringing
endorsement.

I see a huge differential between the high quality of Racket and the fact
that its popularity is low. Then again, perhaps Racket is where Python was
ten years ago, i.e., more than ready for prime-time, "batteries included,"
far better than languages X (Perl), Y, and Z . . . but not yet widely
accepted. Then Python began to make big strides.

What's latest thinking on Racket To the World? Could a Racket-based on-line
curriculum be set up a-la Udacity or OCW? Also, what's the story with MIT
not using Scheme anymore in its intro class? I heard Cornell and Harvard
use OCaml, of all things. . . .

LB
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20140625/a9063e51/attachment.html>