On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:29 PM, wrote:
> One more question.
>
> I've been told that there are no typeclasses in TR.
> How would you handle this?
>
> foo :: (Ord a) => a -> a -> a
Racket doesn't have a general notion of ordering, so we'd probably
write this function like this:
(: foo : (All (A)
One more question.
I've been told that there are no typeclasses in TR.
How would you handle this?
foo :: (Ord a) => a -> a -> a
(I haven't checked the docs yet. Maybe this is not needed in TR.)
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
Yesterday, thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
> > Developing statically typed code in TR and making it work later on
> > other Scheme implementations should be easy, since the TR type
> > system is intended to allow the same style of code that is used in
> > Racket, which is also similar to the style in
Technically this should be possible and conceptually preferable.
However, it does come with redundancies that conventional type annotations
avoid and I am not sure how much of this redundancy we should push on
programmers.
On Sep 20, 2012, at 4:51 PM, Patrick Mahoney wrote:
> Hey all,
>
Hey all,
One feature of typed racket that makes translation between untyped and
typed code somewhat less simple than adding or removing type signatures is
that certain forms require rewriting/alteration of the untyped form itself.
Others allow stand-alone declaration of the types prior to the for
Thank you all for the replies.
I'll give it a try.
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
At Thu, 20 Sep 2012 02:41:02 -0400 (EDT),
thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
> > The required "translation" step will be mostly
> > removing the type declarations. Doing the same with Haskell etc would
> > most likely be much harder.
>
> Is it possible not to remove types?
Yes. A Typed Racket is a Rac
On Sep 20, 2012, at 2:41 AM, thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
> Is it possible not to remove types?
> Vincent told me that one can "mix typed and untyped code" in Racket.
> How it's done in Racket (the implementation details)? How these modules
> interact? Could you give me some pointers?
1. Typed
> Developing statically typed code in TR and making it work later
> on other Scheme implementations should be easy, since the TR type
> system is intended to allow the same style of code that is used in
> Racket, which is also similar to the style in other scheme
> implementations.
Actually, this
Yesterday, thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
>
> I'm going to write a library. I want it to be available for the
> largest number of people. Can other Lisp-like languages
> (e.g. Guile) use libraries written in Typed Racket?
And Matthias Felleisen replied:
>
> Typed Racket is designed for Racket. On
> Yes, but you can't infer the _definitions_ of types. So what I meant was,
> you must define your types before writing programs. In Racket, you can just
> think about a class of data (e.g. "all the numbers and strings") and write a
not sure this is a black and white situation; seems like haskel
On 9/18/12 4:59 PM, Raoul Duke wrote:
No, by "types first" I think John and Vincent are talking about a conceptual
order. I would phrase it a little more subtly: an ML (or Haskell)
programmer writes their types, then their programs (as you must); a TR
programmer thinks about their data, writes d
> No, by "types first" I think John and Vincent are talking about a conceptual
> order. I would phrase it a little more subtly: an ML (or Haskell)
> programmer writes their types, then their programs (as you must); a TR
> programmer thinks about their data, writes down a program, then writes down
On 9/18/12 4:08 PM, thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
It's also possible to write Typed Racket programs "types first", like
one would in Haskell, and I sometimes do. The "sums-of-products"
programming style of Haskell and ML can be expressed easily with Typed
Racket's structs and union types. You can
At Tue, 18 Sep 2012 16:08:29 -0400 (EDT),
thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
>
> > It's also possible to write Typed Racket programs "types first", like
> > one would in Haskell, and I sometimes do. The "sums-of-products"
> > programming style of Haskell and ML can be expressed easily with Typed
> > Rac
Haskell is a mature, 20-year old compiler.
Typed Racket is an evolving, 3-year old language for which we have only
recently turned to performance issues. Also it runs atop a jit compiler that
does not know anything about types. We need to develop new and different ways
to perform optimization
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=racket&lang2=ghc
?
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
I forgot to ask about performance.
I know that all benchmarks lie, but which one is faster: Haskell or Typed
Racket?
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
> It's also possible to write Typed Racket programs "types first", like
> one would in Haskell, and I sometimes do. The "sums-of-products"
> programming style of Haskell and ML can be expressed easily with Typed
> Racket's structs and union types. You can also mix and match between
> "Haskell" and
At Tue, 18 Sep 2012 09:55:36 -0700,
John Clements wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:30 AM, thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm a beginner, but I have some experience with Scheme and Haskell.
> >
> > Haskell is famous for its strict type system. Is it possible to achieve
> > this in a
On Sep 18, 2012, at 8:30 AM, thorso...@lavabit.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm a beginner, but I have some experience with Scheme and Haskell.
>
> Haskell is famous for its strict type system. Is it possible to achieve
> this in a Lisp-like language? Is Typed Racket as strict as Haskell?
>
> I'd like
Hi,
I'm a beginner, but I have some experience with Scheme and Haskell.
Haskell is famous for its strict type system. Is it possible to achieve
this in a Lisp-like language? Is Typed Racket as strict as Haskell?
I'd like to see a comparison between the two.
(Please don't refer me to the docs. B
22 matches
Mail list logo
