3 ms·
> 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+
by 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 agoIt’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 agoI don't think it would be more practical than just using a typed language in the first place.
- spicybright 5y agoNot 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.