-
-
racket-markdown-blog
Discontinued This repository contains another attempt of writing a blog. The blog's "engine" is written in Racket. There is a Dockerfile which can be used to run the blog inside a Docker container, to ease deployment.
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
Interesting I was just looking at the Chez Scheme backends and didn't remember seeing aarch64, just 32 bit arm. And then I found this
https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme/issues/545
Racket-Chez is different from Cisco-Chez by > 600 commits. I wonder what the plan is to normalize them or will be Racket-Chez be our new house.
https://github.com/racket/ChezScheme
Huh? Weird, I have written a blog website in what Racket offers, following the documentation you criticize in another comment and got it working. Even the not so easy to understand continuation based side of it came to me after reading it thoroughly. It is quite simple to setup your REST routes and all that.
If you are interested, you may refer to: https://github.com/ZelphirKaltstahl/racket-markdown-blog/tre...
I did never bring it online, as I never rented a server for it, but it definitely functions and I had some local posts, which I did not include in the repository.
Did you never have a software without documentation? I think that would be way worse than having a sort of OK documentation of a bare bones web framework, that is actually understandable, with careful reading.
The Racket mailing list is also very helpful and people there are helpful in my experience. Show them you tried and your attempt at things and they'll probably help you out. My only pain with it is, that they are on Google groups.
Re language development, I've been reading PG's "On Lisp" and Beautiful Racket. Not sure when I'll bridge the gap but I'm patient.
Re non-intuitive docs, I agree. Sometimes it's a whole thing to learn how to do something in Racket. The amazing web-server library should have some basic sections which make sense more/less instantly to me, considering I've been a backend dev for like 4 years by now. I still scratch my head a bit as a person coming from the Django / Flask / Jetty / Tornado routing traditions.
The documentation stuff is not a problem with the docs though, it's definitely a problem with me. The racket team has written a ton of great code, they are asking for contributions, they can't read my mind, I want them to be better, so why am I not contributing? I hope to start doing this more :) There's a list of requested documentation contributions here [1] among other suggested ways of contributing.
[1]: https://github.com/racket/racket/wiki/Documentation-Improvem...
Jesse Alama here. If you bought a book from me but are unsatisfied, I'm happy to refund you. If you found my stuff unhelpful, let me know what's missing and I can try to include a discussion of that in the next edition. Just write me offline. Or write to the group, or visit us (or me) in the Racket Slack.
I wrote my stuff to help people get into web development with Racket. I love web devel, and Racket, too. You and I have a lot in common: I found the official docs puzzling, so I worked out my own approach to them and made _Server: Racket_. It should go without saying that that's the origin story of just about every paid book out there on applications of programming language X to domain Y. That's not even a criticism of the Racket docs. Plenty of tools/languages also have good docs, and there are lots of books, too. How many Django books (or even courses) are out there?
There are also some great web programming tutorials out there for Racket, too. I recommend this one, by Racket star Jens Axel Søgaard: https://github.com/soegaard/web-tutorial .
I hope you'd give Racket a chance. Since you're talking about it, it sounds like you're dipping your toes in the waters. I'm pretty sure you'll find them quite welcoming. That said, all this negativity is pretty off-putting.