drracket VS gui

I've filed a bug report on Github: https://github.com/racket/drracket/issues/596

The original version of DrRacket was written in C, but it has been rewritten in Racket a long time ago. https://github.com/racket/drracket

I use a mix of DrRacket, WinEdt and Geany (with more color in the matched parenthesis).

To be fair, I'm not exactly sure which parts of emacs are written in C, but all extensions which make it more than an editor (i.e. an IDE) are interpreted lisp. Still, I'm not convinced. Another example, DrRacket, the IDE for Racket is written entirely in Racket, and that's plenty fast as far as I can tell*. It's a bit slow to start up, but that's all Racket programs.

> The problem with learning Lisp is `(a ,b c)

If you can understand "String ${interpolation}", you can understand list quasiquoting.

> But the problem remains: it only takes one wizard to make reading code impossible by outsiders.

This really is a Lisp meme. There are plenty of Lisp wizards like Guy Steele, Rich Hickey, and Matthew Flatt. The wizards perform the magical act of making code legible and intelligible. I have stumbled around several Clojure and Racket code bases and never felt like "I should understand this code but the features of Lisp make it impossible to know for sure." "Infinite power" macros and whatever are really only used sparingly and generally when it's impossible to achieve a goal otherwise. No one is doing (define + -).

> But this means no-one outside of the language/system developers know the language, this means Lisp tends to be write-only by design - not in the line-noise meaning, but in the obscure foreign language meaning.

I, as a Racket novice, have been able to add candlesticks [1] to the plot library without learning much about it. I have also debugged DrRacket (an IDE) to uncover that Racket GUI operations performed significantly worse if non-integer scaling was used [2]. At no point when I was going through Racket internal code did I ever feel it was write-only. In fact, it was quite convenient to modify Racket internal source code, rebuild, and test changes in a way that would be much more difficult in Java or C++.

> You certainly can not do that, but if you choose to not do that, why pick Lisp?

Built in rationals.

The ergonomics of defining [XML / JSON / etc] data as S-expressions and doing things like pattern matching on that data.

Great, coherent integration between GUIs, plots, statistics functions, and all the other bits of Racket's batteries inclusions.

You still have access to all the other great features that other languages have borrowed from Lisp like REPL development, package managers, good IDE tools, etc.

It is nice to learn the meta-syntax of parentheses once and know that the code will always look like that. No need to consider if some feature is implemented as a syntactically different new keyword, annotation, function call, or whatever. It'll always be a (feature).

> something you have to conciously work for with Lisp.

Plenty of languages have style guides, linters, static analysis tools, etc. to make sure the code conforms to certain restrictions. Lisp feels no different in this regard.

[1] https://docs.racket-lang.org/plot/renderer2d.html#%28def._%2...

[2] https://github.com/racket/gui/commit/20e589c091998b0121505e2...

Please file a bug report at https://github.com/racket/gui/issues

https://github.com/racket/gui/issues/207#issuecomment-753406612