Why we're supporting Typed Clojure
blog.circleci.com
Why we're supporting Typed Clojure
1–10 of 77 posts
Re: Why we're supporting Typed Clojure
#2The paper behind Racket's new contract system which allows optional typing to be determined at runtime or compile time or both and across modules:
http://www.eecs.northwestern.edu/~robby/pubs/papers/oopsla20...
Re: Why we're supporting Typed Clojure
#3One of the best ways to get people to support optional typing in dynamic languages is to make sure their tools can read those types and provide metadata.
Program verification is cool, but enabling "intellisense" on a hash is even cooler.
Re: Why we're supporting Typed Clojure
#4One of the best ways to get people to support optional typing in dynamic languages is to make sure their tools can read those types and provide metadata. Program verification is cool, but enabling "intellisense" on a hash is even cooler.
Indeed. I'm hoping the IDE support will include emacs - it can already do loads of cool things connected to nrepl, but completion on a hash would be amazing.
Re: Why we're supporting Typed Clojure
#5> Typed Clojure is one of the biggest advancements to dynamic programming languages in the last few decades. It shows that you can have the amazing flexibility of a dynamic language, while providing lightweight, optional typing.
I'm sure there have been great advances. But you are showcasing this as if it was a completely new idea, even though PHP has been using it for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Re: Why we're supporting Typed Clojure
#6One of the best ways to get people to support optional typing in dynamic languages is to make sure their tools can read those types and provide metadata. Program verification is cool, but enabling "intellisense" on a hash is even cooler.
What is intellisense on a hash?
Re: Why we're supporting Typed Clojure
#7> Typed Clojure is one of the biggest advancements to dynamic programming languages in the last few decades. It shows that you can have the amazing flexibility of a dynamic language, while providing lightweight, optional typing. I'm sure there have been great advances. But you are showcasing this as if it was a completely new idea, even though PHP has been using it for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're correct. Sam Tobin-Hochstadt is the star of the show, and is given a mention in the article, along with his fantastic Typed Racket.
Re: Why we're supporting Typed Clojure
#8One of the best ways to get people to support optional typing in dynamic languages is to make sure their tools can read those types and provide metadata. Program verification is cool, but enabling "intellisense" on a hash is even cooler.
What is intellisense on a hash?
Autocompletion on the keys of a hash.
Re: Why we're supporting Typed Clojure
#9The paper behind Racket's new contract system which allows optional typing to be determined at runtime or compile time or both and across modules: http://www.eecs.northwestern.edu/~robby/pubs/papers/oopsla20...
That's insane.
Re: Why we're supporting Typed Clojure
#10> Typed Clojure is one of the biggest advancements to dynamic programming languages in the last few decades. It shows that you can have the amazing flexibility of a dynamic language, while providing lightweight, optional typing. I'm sure there have been great advances. But you are showcasing this as if it was a completely new idea, even though PHP has been using it for a long time. Correct me if I'm wrong.
You're totally wrong. For one thing, PHP coerces WAY too much for any type system to be effective. That's just plain duck typing.