2 ms·
Really well done. The lang design, the docs: intend is clear in every case and very on point. I've never been a fan of lisps, but that has more to do with the
by cies 9y ago
Really well done. The lang design, the docs: intend is clear in every case and very on point.
I've never been a fan of lisps, but that has more to do with the common lack of strong typing discipline, than that it was a syntax issue. Currently I'm using Haskell a lot.
But this lisp is a breath of fresh air to my type-loving brain.
Maybe I've overlooked them, but what about higher kinded types and reflecting purity at type level? Are they not-in-and-never-will-be-by-design, or maybe-if-someone-implements, or on-the-road-map?
- aidenn0 9y agoHave you looked at Shen[1] at all? It is a lisp dialect with a reasonably full featured type system[2] 1: http://www.shenlanguage.org/ http://www.shenlanguage.org/ 2: http://www.shenlanguage.org/learn-shen/index.html#9%20Types http://www.shenlanguage.org/learn-shen/index.html#9%20Types
- djur 9y agoIs the open source version of Shen suitable for production use? It's not clear to me how actively it's developed or how much it differs from the "professional" version. The website suggests it lags far behind, but I recall there being an acrimonious split between the original creator and the open source community.
- gnulinux 9y agoI second this. Shen is probably my favorite lisp.
- skybrian 9y agoDynamic types at compile time combined with static types at runtime seems like a nice tradeoff. After all, the types will be checked for all the code actually generated. It probably makes error messages more confusing, though.
- M_Bakhtiari 9y agoI agree in that I don't like weak typing discipline, but Lisp was pretty much always strongly typed.