Anonymous user
Category talk:Racket: Difference between revisions
→racket IS scheme
(→racket IS scheme: UNIX Shell... C Shell...) |
|||
Line 9:
::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)
::: Racket's documentation, at [http://docs.racket-lang.org/guide/dialects.html Dialects of Racket and Scheme], claims that Racket and R6RS are different dialects: "beware that the syntactic forms and functions of R6RS differ from Racket."
:::: it also says that racket is based on the scheme branch of lisp, meaning that racket is a dialect of scheme. the same claim is made by other scheme implementations.--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 06:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
::: Among the contributors to Rosetta Code, the authors of Racket and Scheme examples should decide whether Racket is Scheme, or Racket is a separate language. A page like [[24 game]] should not have a Racket section and also, at the same time, have "PLT Scheme" in its Scheme section.
::: Rosetta Code removed "Category:Bash" and "Category:Korn Shell", because those are implementations of [[:Category:UNIX Shell]], not separate languages. I am currently emptying "Category:Zsh" for the same reason. This is good because I can write one program at [[Primality by trial division#UNIX Shell]] to work with [[Bash]], [[Korn Shell]] and [[Z Shell]]. However, I also created [[:Category:C Shell]] as a separate category. I still want to group C Shell with UNIX Shell, so I always put a subsection <code><nowiki>==={{header|C Shell}}===</nowiki></code> under section <code><nowiki>=={{header|UNIX Shell}}==</nowiki></code>. --[[User:Kernigh|Kernigh]] 04:54, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
:::: i like that approach. it would certainly work for racket if people think that racket needs its own language entry (i am not convinced of that yet). ideally i'd go even further and group all lisp implementations that way, but that may not be practical with the current structure in rosettacode. (and it would be a lot of work for little gain)
:::: one thing that also speaks against the racket category is that it is only recently renamed from plt-scheme. i doubt anyone would even consider plt-scheme to not be scheme. but if plt-scheme is scheme, then racket must be as well. (unless they changed the language and racket is incompatible to plt-scheme)--[[User:EMBee|eMBee]] 06:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
| |||