gui
rhombus-prototype
gui | rhombus-prototype | |
---|---|---|
4 | 24 | |
63 | 299 | |
- | 0.7% | |
7.7 | 9.7 | |
9 days ago | 1 day ago | |
Racket | Racket | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
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
rhombus-prototype
-
Why does Racket have Type-Maps instead of Just a Single Map?
See related post. The dot operator in Rhombus will allow a function call like expr.map(…) to be statically specialized to Some.map(expr, …) provided that expr carries sufficient static information. This isn’t possible in Racket given the lack of static information in general.
- State of Rhombus
-
Rhombus-in-the-rough: A 2D RPG implemented in the Rhombus Racket dialect
If you want to know more the best starting point is https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype They have discussion on the GitHub repo
-
Multiple namespaces?
Racket has the concept of binding space built on top of the scope-set model. The experiment language Rhombus makes heavy use of this for contextual bindings. Note that bindings are used for language extensions among other purposes in Racket.
-
Generalized and first-class macros: what is this called?
The notion of “tail sequence” in general doesn’t exist in Lisp’s macro-expansion model, since Lisp macros are strictly local transformations. A “tail sequence” allows a macro to control the expansion of the whole context, which requires wrapping the whole context in another macro in Lisp’s model. This is what leads to proposals like #%local-definition in Racket. However, this notion does exist in the enforestation model, which is what the experiment language Rhombus is based on, although it’s probably not quite a Lisp ;)
- Lang Rhombus
-
Anyone else concerned that Rhombus/Racket2 is not a lisp based language?
Rhombus is: - just another #lang. It is built on top of the existing Racket VM and written in Racket. It interoperates with existing Racket code and uses the Racket expander. - macro extendable. Hygiene and all of the good stuff work. - being developed in the open. We meet biweekly over Zoom, and discussions also occur in GitHub Discussions.
- Anyone aware of Racket projects that are in need of contributors? I am experienced in PL design and have two months worth of spare time. I have never contributed to an opensource project before besides taureg.
-
Racket->Rhombus: To Sexp or not to Sexp?
Querying Git references for rhombus-prototype at https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype.git Using cached16617263581661726358301 for https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype.git DrRacket install: version mismatch for dependency for package: https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype.git mismatch packages: base (have 8.6, need 8.6.0.9)
Instead of hoping, you might consider reading the discussions to see what the developers are actually saying. Just a thought.