3 ms·
Checking alone isn't the point. As things stand, it's no better than C, where the type checker can approve your code, yet it still has undefined behavior.
by catnaroek 10y ago
Checking alone isn't the point. As things stand, it's no better than C, where the type checker can approve your code, yet it still has undefined behavior.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoSo you want exhaustive matching? I don't know if any lisp provides that by default. One of them probably does, somewhere. But since you don't mind Lisp syntax, and really like type systems, have you tried Shen? (http://www.shenlanguage.org http://www.shenlanguage.org) it's an interesting project.
- catnaroek 10y ago> But since you don't mind Lisp syntax, and really like type systems, have you tried Shen? I also want: (0) Type inference. Shen seems to require all typed code to be manually type-annotated. (1) A decent module system. There seems to be no mention of abstract types in Shen's documentation. (2) A guarantee that dynamically typed code won't break abstractions defined in statically typed code.
- qwertyuiop924 10y agoI'm pretty sure shen has limited type inference. There might be ADTs.