4 ms·

I used to be a religious devotee to Lisp, but then I started programming for a living and realized that static type systems (even of the simplest variety) are s

I used to be a religious devotee to Lisp, but then I started programming for a living and realized that static type systems (even of the simplest variety) are so helpful for preventing bugs. Unfortunately, I never found a typed variant of Lisp that I really liked; the uniform Lisp syntax doesn't collide well with the stratification of types and values.

ausbah 4y ago
have you ever tried typed racket?
- iamevn 4y ago
  I really like Racket and write as much as I can in Typed Racket. It's great but also has lots of weird little warts that I keep stumbling across. One of the biggest for me is that type signatures completely take the place of untyped Racket's contracts. It's way too difficult to have both types and contracts attached to things. Ideally one could write a contract for things that are not able to be expressed in the type system but Typed Racket doesn't let you.
medo-bear 4y ago
>I used to be a religious devotee to Lisp, but then I started programming for a living and realized that static type systems so you just switched religions ?
- sph 4y ago
  Yeah but this one has got all the answers!
aidenn0 4y ago
You might want to look at coalton[1]. It's a common lisp ML alike.
- reikonomusha 4y ago
  More info: https://coalton-lang.github.io/20211010-introducing-coalton/ https://coalton-lang.github.io/20211010-introducing-coalton/
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    Thanks, I could have sworn I linked it...
easygenes 4y ago
What's your take on Haskell? Strong, static typed with type inference..
juancn 4y ago
Weakly typed languages are like that, once you start practicing programming as a team sport, the type system is your friend. Another factor usually ignored, is that when coding as a team, code is read way more often than written/modified. The success of a language has a lot to do on how easy it is to read code written by others, but without making readability too cumbersome to write for (e.g. AppleScript is easy to read, but hard to write). Too much flexibility hampers understanding. It's a balancing act, and in the end, a popularity contest. The most widely used languages are likely best for most projects. There's a reason why they are successful.
djha-skin 4y ago
I've had my eye on Carp[1], if you're interested. Uses ownership like Rust instead of GC, sort of a rust-like typed lisp. 1: https://github.com/carp-lang/Carp https://github.com/carp-lang/Carp

ausbah 4y ago

have you ever tried typed racket?

iamevn 4y ago
I really like Racket and write as much as I can in Typed Racket. It's great but also has lots of weird little warts that I keep stumbling across. One of the biggest for me is that type signatures completely take the place of untyped Racket's contracts. It's way too difficult to have both types and contracts attached to things. Ideally one could write a contract for things that are not able to be expressed in the type system but Typed Racket doesn't let you.

medo-bear 4y ago

>I used to be a religious devotee to Lisp, but then I started programming for a living and realized that static type systems so you just switched religions ?

sph 4y ago
Yeah but this one has got all the answers!

aidenn0 4y ago

You might want to look at coalton[1]. It's a common lisp ML alike.

reikonomusha 4y ago
More info: https://coalton-lang.github.io/20211010-introducing-coalton/ https://coalton-lang.github.io/20211010-introducing-coalton/
- aidenn0 4y ago
  Thanks, I could have sworn I linked it...

easygenes 4y ago

What's your take on Haskell? Strong, static typed with type inference..

juancn 4y ago

Weakly typed languages are like that, once you start practicing programming as a team sport, the type system is your friend. Another factor usually ignored, is that when coding as a team, code is read way more often than written/modified. The success of a language has a lot to do on how easy it is to read code written by others, but without making readability too cumbersome to write for (e.g. AppleScript is easy to read, but hard to write). Too much flexibility hampers understanding. It's a balancing act, and in the end, a popularity contest. The most widely used languages are likely best for most projects. There's a reason why they are successful.

djha-skin 4y ago

I've had my eye on Carp[1], if you're interested. Uses ownership like Rust instead of GC, sort of a rust-like typed lisp. 1: https://github.com/carp-lang/Carp https://github.com/carp-lang/Carp