3 ms·
Not a fan of typed Racket. It feels like grafting a type-system onto a Lisp with macros, which is, IMO, not sufficient. The syntax in particular is ugly and cre
by packetlost 4y ago
Not a fan of typed Racket. It feels like grafting a type-system onto a Lisp with macros, which is, IMO, not sufficient. The syntax in particular is ugly and creates unnecessary separation between bindings and their types. Also gradual typing is little bit of worst of both worlds, coming from a heavily typed Python codebase.
- nequo 4y ago> creates unnecessary separation between bindings and their types I like this in Haskell/Agda/Idris because it makes the function definition easier to read while still keeping the type signature in view. Interesting. Like they say, de syntaxibus non est disputandum.