Category talk:Racket: Difference between revisions

From Rosetta Code
Content added Content deleted
No edit summary
Line 6: Line 6:


:There is some ambiguity about this. At which point does something become a separate language vs an implementation of the same language? Can the makers of an implementation simply decide that it is a new language? From what I hear, there are some incompatibilities between Racket and Scheme. Wikipedia currently calls Racket a programming language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(programming_language) which it does not do for other implementations of Scheme. Many questions on StackOverflow simply say "Racket" without mentioning "Scheme". --[[Special:Contributions/76.21.41.59|76.21.41.59]] 09:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
:There is some ambiguity about this. At which point does something become a separate language vs an implementation of the same language? Can the makers of an implementation simply decide that it is a new language? From what I hear, there are some incompatibilities between Racket and Scheme. Wikipedia currently calls Racket a programming language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(programming_language) which it does not do for other implementations of Scheme. Many questions on StackOverflow simply say "Racket" without mentioning "Scheme". --[[Special:Contributions/76.21.41.59|76.21.41.59]] 09:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
::Scheme is defined [http://www.scheme-reports.org/ here] in form of reports. the latest of which is [http://www.r6rs.org/ R6RS]. Racket [http://docs.racket-lang.org/r6rs/ implements R6RS].
::as for your question i think for rosettacode the answer may be different than for other places. i think it is beneficial to have all scheme dialects in one place for easier comparison.--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 10:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:15, 9 November 2011

racket IS scheme

Racket is a language from the Scheme family. lest we give every scheme language a separate category they should all be categorized under Scheme

this page should be renamed from Category:Racket to Racket, but i am not doing that now because i am not sure how that affects all the racket solutions. they may need to be moved to scheme first.--eMBee 07:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is some ambiguity about this. At which point does something become a separate language vs an implementation of the same language? Can the makers of an implementation simply decide that it is a new language? From what I hear, there are some incompatibilities between Racket and Scheme. Wikipedia currently calls Racket a programming language: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racket_(programming_language) which it does not do for other implementations of Scheme. Many questions on StackOverflow simply say "Racket" without mentioning "Scheme". --76.21.41.59 09:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Scheme is defined here in form of reports. the latest of which is R6RS. Racket implements R6RS.
as for your question i think for rosettacode the answer may be different than for other places. i think it is beneficial to have all scheme dialects in one place for easier comparison.--eMBee 10:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)