I don’t necessarily agree with Hungarian notation, but I very much agree with his main principle: > This is the real art: making robust code by literally _inventing conventions_ that make errors stand out on the screen.

A failure of pretty-printing: #lang racket/base (for/fold ([x 'z]) ([i 100]) (list 's x))

(I actually had to print this, really)

Racket has moved up to the highest position (above OCaml, Clojure, Elixir) on my <https://blog.lojic.com/2020/11/24/programming-language-popularity-part-thirteen.html|Programming Language Popularity> that I can recall. All sorts of issues with these stats, especially for some languages, but Racket’s unique name may means its stats are more trustworthy than R’s stats :)

Racket on the other hand is less trustworthy than OCaml. When I tried “written in racket” and go to the 10th page, the results are mostly irrelevant.

Oh, you have quotes

That makes the result more precise indeed, but there’s still an issue.

This shows that there are ~200K results for “written in racket”

But when you go to page 10, the results drop to ~100.

Contrast that with Clojure, which does have more 10 pages of search results

How could the total number of search results for “Racket” go down from 2017 to 2018? Seems odd

BTW, does Frog allow some sort of comment system?

likely no one in the US calls that a bee, but they do call it USB