thorso...@lavabit.com writes:
> "Typed Racket is designed for Racket. One day Guile will have a Typed
> Guile companion, and Chez Scheme may have a Typed Chez companion but
> until then TR is for Racket." [1]
>
> Is it this bad? Do we really need Typed Guile?
Is what bad? The state of code reuse?
It entirely depends on the typed language. Anything that can compile
to a C-compatible binary should be usable.
I believe that Haskell can do that. You have to explicitly write what
the C entry points are going to be, which might be tedious, but I
think it's for the best anyway. See
http://www.has
release notes:
Big news is testing w/ Guile 1.8 and dropped ‘<<.>>’ misfeature.
Many internal changes, reflecting experience collected (endured)
over the last five years, since the previous release.
thi
README excerpt:
This directory contains WIKID, comprising:
- a wiki daemon
- a
Noah,
Can Guile use a library written on a typed language?
I understand that it's not going to work out of the box, but what would be
easier to adapt: Haskell, Typed Racket or Typed Clojure*?
