4 ms·

I have 0 experience here but that's really surprising to me. I'd think out of any language lisp would shine here. You could write as complex of a type system

I have 0 experience here but that's really surprising to me. I'd think out of any language lisp would shine here. You could write as complex of a type system as you wanted that compile time checks, so it's surprising someone hasn't written one that mimics at least java/c++/whatever style types. I do think that is one of the down sides to lisp though. When you can do almost anything it's very hard to agree on what to actually do.

Jtsummers 5y ago
Shen is an example of that. In its original form, Qi, it was written for Common Lisp and later written for other languages. http://shenlanguage.org/ http://shenlanguage.org/
- hajile 5y ago
  Wow, I'm glad that they opened up the documentation. I liked what I saw a few years ago, but I'm not getting behind a language where all the usable docs are proprietary.
Zababa 5y ago
> You could write as complex of a type system as you wanted that compile time checks, so it's surprising someone hasn't written one that mimics at least java/c++/whatever style types. There's at least typed racket. > I have 0 experience here but that's really surprising to me. > I'd think out of any language lisp would shine here. I don't think you should be surprised that people don't want to write their typecheckers as macros. A few people might want to do that, but most people don't. And at this point you're not far from just creating a new language, that you could create in ML or a descendant, which have always been one of the most popular options for that.
- reikonomusha 5y ago
  It’s a lot more practical than you think if you’re willing to roll up your sleeve and do the work. Fortunately, people have already done the work for you. [1] [1] https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton
  - Zababa 5y ago
    I don't think it would be more practical than just using a typed language in the first place.
    - spicybright 5y ago
      Not really getting the argument, the above lib pretty much makes it a superset that adds types. And while I don't know the scope of the library, if they have a way to not allow dynamic features then you're already starting from a having a typed language (with one library dependency). Only now you can keep building up the type system in ways that benefit your project, unlike in most non lisp languages.

Jtsummers 5y ago

Shen is an example of that. In its original form, Qi, it was written for Common Lisp and later written for other languages. http://shenlanguage.org/ http://shenlanguage.org/

hajile 5y ago
Wow, I'm glad that they opened up the documentation. I liked what I saw a few years ago, but I'm not getting behind a language where all the usable docs are proprietary.

Zababa 5y ago

> You could write as complex of a type system as you wanted that compile time checks, so it's surprising someone hasn't written one that mimics at least java/c++/whatever style types. There's at least typed racket. > I have 0 experience here but that's really surprising to me. > I'd think out of any language lisp would shine here. I don't think you should be surprised that people don't want to write their typecheckers as macros. A few people might want to do that, but most people don't. And at this point you're not far from just creating a new language, that you could create in ML or a descendant, which have always been one of the most popular options for that.

reikonomusha 5y ago
It’s a lot more practical than you think if you’re willing to roll up your sleeve and do the work. Fortunately, people have already done the work for you. [1] [1] https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton
- Zababa 5y ago
  I don't think it would be more practical than just using a typed language in the first place.
  - spicybright 5y ago
    Not really getting the argument, the above lib pretty much makes it a superset that adds types. And while I don't know the scope of the library, if they have a way to not allow dynamic features then you're already starting from a having a typed language (with one library dependency). Only now you can keep building up the type system in ways that benefit your project, unlike in most non lisp languages.