4 ms·
I've found that Typed Racket is still fairly hard to use. For example, type classes aren't there, and type polymorphism interacts poorly with general-purpose fu
by pavpanchekha 7y ago
I've found that Typed Racket is still fairly hard to use. For example, type classes aren't there, and type polymorphism interacts poorly with general-purpose functions like "equal?". I would guess that ML or Haskell code translates fairly naturally, but there aren't the guide-rails those languages have to keep you in the subset of the language that type-checks well.
- spdegabrielle 7y agoTyped Racket has type classes: https://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-reference/Typed_Classes.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-reference/Typed_Classes.html
- pavpanchekha 7y agoUhh, sorry, I meant type classes in the Haskell sense (similar to interfaces), not typed classes (like in Java).
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- nikofeyn 7y agowhen i went through the coursera course "programming languages", i did part a in standard ml (what the course uses) but also in f# and in typed racket (using racket's pattern matching). the code was practically identical across all three languages. now, that's for someone simple programs, but i was surprised that the translation from two MLs was basically trivial to typed racket.