4 ms·
> Having dynamic types and macros makes it a very different beast to Haskell, Can you speak to how the type systems in Typed Racket and Haskell differ? I ask
by peatmoss 11y ago
> Having dynamic types and macros makes it a very different beast to Haskell,
Can you speak to how the type systems in Typed Racket and Haskell differ?
I ask because I too have tried scaling Mount Haskell and noped out not long after the base camp. If I continue with Typed Racket, am I getting some or most of what I'd get by learning Haskell? Or is Haskell simply a beast I must slay to become whole?
- chriswarbo 11y agoSorry, I've not used Typed Racket so I can't comment. I've only played around a little with Racket itself, although I've used various Schemes in anger (and more Emacs Lisp than I'd like!) One cultural issue, rather than a technical one, is that the whole of Haskell is strongly typed, lazy and pure; there's no getting away from it, so every idiom, library and API must take them into account. I imagine Typed Racket's ability to mix and match features will result in more "conservative" code (ie. choosing the type system to match a known approach, rather than inventing a new approach to fit the type system).
- peatmoss 11y agoThat's a good answer. I'm still fairly novice in Racket, so I don't yet have a good intuition for where Racket is asserting its own cultural norms. Haskell definitely communicates its concepts of purity early on, and so I can see where the community would continue to push itself in these directions.