

Racket v5.3.6 released - racketlang
http://blog.racket-lang.org/2013/08/racket-v536.html

======
racketlang
Full list of changes for 5.3.6:
[https://github.com/plt/racket/commits/v5.3.6](https://github.com/plt/racket/commits/v5.3.6)

This was a bug-fix release. In Typed Racket, one set of fixes adds support for
struct:, define-type, and require/typed at the REPL. The DrRacket bug with [
on some keyboards was also fixed. For the rest, see the log above.

~~~
marshray
TIL 'Scheme with Types' is a thing. Thanks!

------
test-it
Any Racketeers over here?

~~~
gcr
Racketeer on and off since 2010. It's a really great language; I encourage
everyone to at least give it a try.

The racket docs ([http://docs.racket-lang.org/](http://docs.racket-lang.org/))
have a list of tutorials at the top. There's a visual art/programming tutorial
for those new to lisp ([http://docs.racket-
lang.org/quick/](http://docs.racket-lang.org/quick/)) and a webapp one
([http://docs.racket-lang.org/continue/](http://docs.racket-
lang.org/continue/)) that demonstrates Racket's built-in web framework.

~~~
omaranto
It is nice! My main issue is that Dr Racket is so pleasant I'm sorely tempted
to use it and it brings my laptop to its knees (that feature that draws arrows
from uses of identifiers to their definitions always freezes my computer for
half a second to a second; if I evaluate something that consumes any non-
trivial amount of memory Dr Racket starts swapping like it's 1999 and becomes
unresponsive). I used Racket for a while from the REPL and everything worked
beatifully but I constantly missed the Dr. In the end I switched to Chicken,
which at least for my programs seems to be quite a bit faster too (I mean
compiled Chicken code vs JITed Racket, of course, the Racket JIT is usually
substantially faster than interpreted Chicken). Chicken also has great library
support, so switching was not painful at all.

(Of course, I don't write fancy macros, so I wasn't taking advantage of
Racket. For 99% of the macros I write syntax-rules is good enough.)

A few other things I prefer the SRFI way, for example, Racket's comprehensions
seem awkward compared to SRFI-42 (in particular Racket decided to call the
main comprehension for*/list, leaving prettier and shorter names to less
useful variants such as the exotic parallel-by-default for/list, or the
execute-for-side-effects and parallel-by-default for); but all in all I agree
that Racket is pretty sweet. If ever own a computer with more than 2GB of ram
I'll definitely give it another shot.

~~~
jpd
I imagine that the names for for/list and its counterpart came from the scheme
let and let*, which are parallel and sequential respectively.

