|
|
|
|
|
by sigstoat
3221 days ago
|
|
> When I investigated it, there seemed to be no way to actually connect a repl to a running program. i (poorly) implemented conditions for racket once, including the ability to drop into a repl at the point of error. so i think you could put in place some macros that would let you get at a repl wherever you wanted. probably not the sort of thing to leave in place all the time, though > Unlike with common lisp or clojure, with racket if you make changes to your code you have to restart the REPL, which destroys your state. that's a different issue. i believe matthias has commented on the mailing list (some years back) that the semantics associated with doing something like that are a mess, and that's why they weren't interested in implementing it. |
|
My workflow is generally to build up state, and then experiment with functions on that state until I get the correct output.
This workflow is very natural in Clojure, Common Lisp and even Python (with IPython and autoreload).
However, in Racket you have to restart everything on every change. This works ok for smaller applications, but if for example, your state is a large dataset that you pull from a remote database, it becomes a little more difficult.
There are possibly workarounds, and I'm not saying that Racket is bad because of this. There are definite advantages to this approach, mainly for keeping everything simple and predictable. However, this was a roadblock for me, and the main reason why I didn't spend more time working on it.
I also miss the ability to make changes to code, refresh the browser and instantly see the changes (instead of having to restart the server after each change).
Here's a good discussion (in my opinion) of what makes a good REPL for interactive development: http://vvvvalvalval.github.io/posts/what-makes-a-good-repl.h...