On 08/03/14 16:47, Stefan Israelsson Tampe wrote: > The beauty of scheme is that it is quite possible to design statically > typed meta language.
Please spare me this approach. It certainly is possible but is a lot of effort and you get a gimped version of existing languages but without any real features. If you're going to design such a thing, why not simply use a different language and expose bindings? I am unsure if you're only mentioning that it is possible as thought or are actually suggesting such approach. > And if we let the guile hacker doggies chew on the > guile stake a little bit more, you would also see a speedup of the > generated code that will essentially mean that just a tiny bit of C-code > needs to be written. In all a perfect setup for fast maintainable and > secure code. I'm asking how the perfect setup is going to be achieved. Simply writing the library in Guile does not make it secure (or maintainable for that matter). My sole question to the opening post is ‘how will the library be assured to be secure?’. That is all I wish to know from this thread. > But the bit's needs to be in place. Why don't we try to copy > typed racket over to guile? Unfortunately Typed Racket is truly horrible to write, read and use. I think it is a prime example of what happens if you try to tack on a simple type system on top of an existing LISP/Scheme dialect. Personally I think the time spent implementing such abomination would be better spent be triple-checking code in Guile as it is today. It is just an opinion and you're free to disagree of course. > /Stefan -- Mateusz K.
