4 ms·
I like LISPs conceptually. However, I have a strong preference for static type systems, so I have probably written 10x more lines of code of LISP implementation
by shpongled 7y ago
I like LISPs conceptually. However, I have a strong preference for static type systems, so I have probably written 10x more lines of code of LISP implementations than LISP code itself.
- jsjolen 7y agoRacket has Typed Racket, you might want to try that out!
- TurboHaskal 7y agoHave you tried it yourself though? That thing is so slow it's barely usable.
- jsjolen 7y agoIs it the type checking or the runtime that's slow?
- ernst_klim 7y agoAlthough I like OCaml way better than lisp, there is some static typing in Common Lisp. Sure there would be a lot of T (basic object) in your signatures, but you can have some typing discipline within it (although not as strict and beautiful as in ML languages).
- zeveb 7y agoA Common Lisp implementation may have static types: (defun foo (x) (declare (type fixnum x)) (1- x)) If you don't specify them, types all default to T.