i should get back into haskell and this time try not to write code that makes the real FP people on my timeline want to vomit
@efi because people actually like racket and it would make *me* sad to write my bad functional programming code in it
@typhlosion no, the thing is, racket is very open ended
honestly, one of the reasons I like it is you can find multiple ways to write the same code that are syntactically valid and semantically equivalent, down to the compiled code, but using completely different verbs and structures
there is no one correct way to write racket and that's its strength
@typhlosion speaking as someone who I guess might qualify as a "real FP person" by virtue of having gotten paid for a couple years writing Haskell full time: it's not worth worrying about what "real FP people" think is good, we're all full of shit
I mean I do think there's good stuff to learn from functional programming, and it can be fun to find the purest, most type-theoretically interesting way to express an idea, but also I find that's rarely the best choice
@typhlosion why not racket? it has less haters