11 ms·

Similarly, Clojure got no types. Which makes it infinitely less runtime-safe then any language with types. Takes a more nuanced argument.

sklogic 11y ago
For a language with macros it does not matter at all. You can add any type system you like on top of it. Metalanguages are infinitely flexible.
- justthistime_ 11y ago
  The strength of a type system is that there is one. If everyone uses his/her own self-made pet of a typesystem most of the benefits are gone as soon as you are more than a one-man-hobbyist project. Probably explains why most Lisps consist of one-man-hobbyist projects, though.
  - sklogic 11y ago
    > The strength of a type system is that there is one. I do not agree. There is no single type system that would fit all the possible use cases. > Probably explains why most Lisps consist of one-man-hobbyist projects, though. No, it does not.
    - justthistime_ 11y ago
      Type systems are by-definition only a conservative approximation of all programs. The good thing is that 99.999999999999% of all programs never need to be written, and there are plenty of type systems which deal well with the last 0.00000000001. > No, it does not. Ok, that leaves the failure of Lisp outside of hobbyist mom's basements a mystery.
      - sklogic 11y ago
        > Type systems are by-definition only a conservative approximation of all programs. This is where I lost a track of your arguments. > Ok, that leaves the failure of Lisp outside of hobbyist mom's basements a mystery. Lisp did not fail. It's in pretty much all the mainstream languages now.
        justthistime_ 11y ago
        > This is where I lost a track of your arguments. Then maybe you should maybe spend some time studying these topics instead of acting up on HN. > Lisp did not fail. It's in pretty much all the mainstream languages now. This is where I lost the last doubts about the reality and your lack of closeness with it.
        sklogic 11y ago
        > Then maybe you should maybe spend some time studying these topics instead of acting up on HN. Chances are, I implemented more varieties of type systems than you can name. > This is where I lost the last doubts about the reality and your lack of closeness with it. Scala fanboys are much more detached from the reality. The reality rejected bondage&discipline languages long ago.
        justthistime_ 11y ago
        You continue to amuse me.
        sklogic 11y ago
        You did not answer, fanboy. Does Scala already allow to use macro in the same compilation unit it was defined?
        dang 11y ago
        > You did not answer, fanboy We ban accounts that do this repeatedly. On HN, please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.

sklogic 11y ago

For a language with macros it does not matter at all. You can add any type system you like on top of it. Metalanguages are infinitely flexible.

justthistime_ 11y ago
The strength of a type system is that there is one. If everyone uses his/her own self-made pet of a typesystem most of the benefits are gone as soon as you are more than a one-man-hobbyist project. Probably explains why most Lisps consist of one-man-hobbyist projects, though.
- sklogic 11y ago
  > The strength of a type system is that there is one. I do not agree. There is no single type system that would fit all the possible use cases. > Probably explains why most Lisps consist of one-man-hobbyist projects, though. No, it does not.
  - justthistime_ 11y ago
    Type systems are by-definition only a conservative approximation of all programs. The good thing is that 99.999999999999% of all programs never need to be written, and there are plenty of type systems which deal well with the last 0.00000000001. > No, it does not. Ok, that leaves the failure of Lisp outside of hobbyist mom's basements a mystery.
    - sklogic 11y ago
      > Type systems are by-definition only a conservative approximation of all programs. This is where I lost a track of your arguments. > Ok, that leaves the failure of Lisp outside of hobbyist mom's basements a mystery. Lisp did not fail. It's in pretty much all the mainstream languages now.
      - justthistime_ 11y ago
        > This is where I lost a track of your arguments. Then maybe you should maybe spend some time studying these topics instead of acting up on HN. > Lisp did not fail. It's in pretty much all the mainstream languages now. This is where I lost the last doubts about the reality and your lack of closeness with it.
        sklogic 11y ago
        > Then maybe you should maybe spend some time studying these topics instead of acting up on HN. Chances are, I implemented more varieties of type systems than you can name. > This is where I lost the last doubts about the reality and your lack of closeness with it. Scala fanboys are much more detached from the reality. The reality rejected bondage&discipline languages long ago.
        justthistime_ 11y ago
        You continue to amuse me.
        sklogic 11y ago
        You did not answer, fanboy. Does Scala already allow to use macro in the same compilation unit it was defined?
        dang 11y ago
        > You did not answer, fanboy We ban accounts that do this repeatedly. On HN, please post civilly and substantively, or not at all.