gui | babashka | |
---|---|---|
4 | 112 | |
63 | 3,818 | |
- | 0.9% | |
7.7 | 9.2 | |
9 days ago | 6 days ago | |
Racket | Clojure | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | Eclipse Public License 1.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
gui
-
A Tour of Lisps
> 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...
- Racket->Rhombus: To Sexp or not to Sexp?
-
No callback when re-selecting in choice%
Please file a bug report at https://github.com/racket/gui/issues
-
Are there alternative or external gui libraries?
https://github.com/racket/gui/issues/207#issuecomment-753406612
babashka
-
A Tour of Lisps
It also gives you access to Babashka if you want Clojure for other use-cases where start-up time is an issue
https://babashka.org/
- Babashka: Fast native Clojure scripting runtime
-
What's the value proposition of meta circular interpreters?
I've tried researching this myself and can't find too much. There's this project metaes which is an mci for JS, and there's the SCI module of the Clojure babashka project, but that's about it. I also saw Triska's video on mci but it was pretty theoretical.
-
Adding Dependencies on Clojure Project the Node Way: A Small Intro to neil CLI
Created by the same guy who created babashka which is a way to write bash scripts, node scripts, and even apple scripts using Clojure. A very proficient and influential developer in the Clojure community. This is how borkduke's neil helps us:
- Babashka
-
Pure Bash Bible
Not what you asked for but there is Babashka for scripting in Clojure.
https://github.com/babashka/babashka
-
Critique of Lazy Sequences in Clojure
Clojure's lazy sequences by default are wonderful ergonomically, but it provides many ways to use strict evaluation if you want to. They aren't really a hassle either. I've been doing Clojure for the last few years and have a few grievances, but overall it's the most coherent, well thought out language I've used and I can't recommend it enough.
There is the issue of startup time with the JVM, but you can also do AOT compilation now so that really isn't a problem. Here are some other cool projects to look at if you're interested:
Malli: https://github.com/metosin/malli
Babashka: https://github.com/babashka/babashka
Clerk: https://github.com/nextjournal/clerk
-
Sharpscript: Lisp for Scripting
Being a Clojure addict, I guess I have to leave the obligatory link to Babashka too then: https://github.com/babashka/babashka (Native, fast starting Clojure interpreter for scripting)
-
Rash – The Reckless Racket Shell
which is now on hiatus. babashka: https://babashka.org
-
Are there any languages (that are in common use in companies) and higher-level that give you the same feeling of simplicity and standardization as C?
I've enjoyed babashka for scripting; which is close enough to clojure to allow using some/many libraries; but (probably) not for embedding.