4 ms·
> To the author, this seems to mean "therefore, we shouldn't have types!". This doesn't follow from the author's earlier statements about using and benefitting
by djur 12y ago
> To the author, this seems to mean "therefore, we shouldn't have types!".
This doesn't follow from the author's earlier statements about using and benefitting from languages with static type checkers. An ideal typed Lisp dialect would fit the author's requirements.
- jroesch 12y agoAn ideally typed Lisp would be no different then a dependently typed language semantically. Yes, you would use slightly different syntax but a key feature of most dependently typed languages is that they only have a single class of pseudo-terms that are used for both types and programs. An example Idris program: double : Nat -> Nat double n = 2 * n ourVectorType : Type ourVectorType = Vect (double 1) Int aVector : ourVectorType aVector = [1, 2] If you change everything above to an S-Exp you have a typed Lisp where both types and terms have the same language.
- lispm 12y agoAdding s-exp notation to a random programming language does not make it a Lisp...