Wow! My question seems to be pretty upstirring. ;-) But you are completely right - I am sniffing around Racket (Typed) bc strong typing + meta programming look like a killer combo.
And btw. yeah something will emerge ... or rather has already emerged https://github.com/LuxLang/lux https://luxlang.gitbooks.io/the-lux-programming-language/content/ Nevertheless I think Racket having somehow the bigger organisation/resources could be leading here Am Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 15:31:01 UTC+1 schrieb Anthony Carrico: > On 01/18/2017 08:57 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > > > And how would components in #lang typed/racket interact with components in > > #lang kinded/racket interact? > > If this wasn't Matthias, I'd say whoever posted this missed the whole > point of Racket. Since it is Matthias, I'll take this as an invitation > to rant. > > At its core, what is racket? Racket is an operating system with Scheme > values, rather than C values, as its foreign function interface. So the > simple answer to the question is that Typed Racket 2 uses Scheme values > as its FFI, just like everyone else does. Does this suck? Yes, but for > many cases it is better than using C values. > Any other vision of the module system is an illusion, I realized this as > soon as I tried Fathertime after the Scheme Workshop 10-20 years ago. > > What do contemporary programmers want? They want some kind of static > proof that their interfaces are good. Why are so many programmers > sniffing around Racket these past few months? Because they noticed > Turnstile, and they recognize that Racket is the state of the art in > metaprogramming. The window is currently open, something like Racket + > Haskell/Idris/Purescript/Agda will emerge. Programmers will bleed from > both camps. Recognize this, or lose all good Racket programmers. Anyone > who uses typed Racket discovers Haskell, and start to hate Racket > because it doesn't have typeclasses. It feels like programming with your > arms chopped off. They don't want to give up Matthew's great work, so > they will bring it with them one way or another. > > Typed Racket was a fine experiment. It accomplished two things. It > showed dynamic programmers that static types and other proofs should be > employed when possible, and contracts should be employed otherwise. > Typed Racket killed Scheme. This is speaking as one of the few > programmers in the world who has been paid to program in typed racket. > > -- > Anthony Carrico -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
