Re: [racket-users] Haskell

The last time I saw a colleague sit down to write a compiler in Haskell, they first had to do a bunch of heavy lifting to get the type system to play along sensibly. http://offog.org/publications/fita200811-generics.pdf Your mileage may vary. I'd just use Racket. (See John's note.) Cheers, Matt

Re: [racket-users] Haskell

Hackett comes to mind, but that might be going in the opposite direction of what you are thinking. On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM 'John Clements' via Racket Users < racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Hmm… While I certainly agree that functional lang

Re: [racket-users] Haskell

Hmm… While I certainly agree that functional languages are good at manipulating program representations, this job (manipulating programs) is more or less *the one thing* that Racket does better than any other language. So… I guess I’d be more likely to use Racket to manipulate Haskell programs t

[racket-users] Haskell

It just occurred to me that Haskell could be a powerful way to manipulate programs in other languages (like Scheme or Racket). Unfortunately, I don't know Haskell. Has anybody been down this path? -- Josh Rubin jlru...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the G

[racket-users] Second Call for Papers, Demos, and Performances: 7th ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Functional Art, Music, Modelling and Design. Berlin, Germany, August 23rd, 2019.

Second Call for Papers, Demos, and Performances: 7th ACM SIGPLAN International Workshop on Functional Art, Music, Modelling and Design. Berlin, Germany, August 23rd, 2019. Key Dates = Paper submission deadline: May 27 (extended deadline) Author Notification: June 17 Camera Ready: June 30