rscho

Industry takeoff would certainly be a nice-to-have. But the racket community is largely computer scientists, who program for research. Will computer scientists turn to Rust to write papers because it's fast ? I don't think so, because their needs seems to be a language that's easy to pick up and experiment with, and writepapers with. People will argue over sexp syntax, but that's why Rhombus exists.

Welcome to the Racket stepper: https://docs.racket-lang.org/stepper/

...and the Racket syntax-parse macro system: https://docs.racket-lang.org/syntax/stxparse.html

At least it shows that the authors are aware of this issue and planned for it.

Racket is not interpreted. It is compiled to machine code. You don't know what you're talking about.

~1/10.000 patient-years is a non-concern ?! I hope you're not an epidemiologist.

Metabolic acidosis. Not trivial at all.

Which happily, is totally devoid of side effects.

Amusingly, this was a very common if not the most common stance on this very website some time ago. Surely, don't look for assistance on the internet regarding memory issues.

Don't come and spoil our nice individualism with populational effects, you filthy rationalist !

Of course deskilling will happen. But marketing says the machine is more often right than the operator is, and people also want it (we can replace docs with AI today, yadda yadda). Soooo... to be expected? It's just that the machine has to work correctly, which is not on the endoscopist, right?

You're absolutely right! This man's got horrible taste in drugs.

How to hedge a bet 101:

1.you bet on risky stuff using something of value (money, health,...)

2.since you're unsure whether your bet will pay off, you bet some more on some other risky stuff, just to be sure.

BTW if you were wondering, of course all those proposed weird life-prolonging treatments are totally devoid of side-effects.

Yes, although even for modern medicine curative and preventative strategies are very distinct. Sure, they'll give you pills to compensate for a problem you already have. But there are few meds that protect you against stuff you'll maybe catch in the future. Vaccines and antibiotics are obvious examples, but I'm not aware of many others. The rest of preventative strategies overwhelmingly consists in correcting deficits or excesses (calories, vitamins, sleep, exercise etc.)

You've got horrible taste in cocktails.

Surprisingly, many people seem to think that pushing a few random pills into a machine optimized over some million years of evolution will tune it so it works better. Go figure...

Lack of pharmacology background doesn't seem like the biggest issue when extrapolating from mouse to human.

Truth be told, none of either prescription or OTC stuff has any solid research backing it. Some people, especially on HN are obsessed with living long and are always prompt to try the weirdest experimental stuff. Reasonable people should remember what the COVID period was on this website, and act accordingly...

Statically checked macros are useful to introduce new syntax at no runtime cost.

Beatings will continue until morale improves.

> silly unless your general stance is that you won't take any medication until that specific formulation has been on the market for decades

Yes, I'd argue that this is the default stance for many healthcare professionals.

Ozempic is very recent. Given the volume of prescription, the probability of problematic side-effect in the short-to-medium term indeed seems low. But it sill is too early to say whether ozempic really isn't problematic. Let's hope so.

Yeah, something like omeprazole.

Ibuprofen ? That's really not something I'd have expected to end up in someone's 'healthy stuff' list. Ibuprofen increases the risk of cardiac event and is a common precipiting factor in renal failure. Most antibiotics also do not do only good things. The list is too long to write here. Side effects profiles change with research and marketing developments, but thinking these drugs are only beneficial is a bit over the top.

Edit: I forgot. Ibuprofen also causes (non trivial) stomach bleeding and increases blood pressure. And many other things too.

Ok, so I am sorry but this is an extremely uninformed take. Please have a look around in Racket's documentation before going any further: https://docs.racket-lang.org/

What do you mean with 'distinct data types' ? Most lisps are strongly typed. SBCL even accepts type declarations.

> efficient distinct data structure types backed by efficient bases

...do not require abandoning CAR and CDR, I think. See all other lisps having vectors, hashmaps, etc. Perhaps you're talking for code representation ? But I don't think that true for all 'traditional' lisps either. Also, there's been some innovation regarding lists: https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/treelist.html

This type of syntax allows rapid iteration when looking at different implementations and experimenting with array problems. It should be thought of more as math notation than general programming.

No, it's 'bacon' :-)

Why gibberish ? It's a common feature in both array languages and Iverson ghosts, and many find it extremely useful.