Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]
clemens.endorphin.org
Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]
1–10 of 27 posts
Re: Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]
#2I will prempt the comment that always shows up in discussions of this kind:
No. Typeclasses do not replace proper macros. Go home, you are drunk.
Re: Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]
#3There's also Hackett: Haskell with Racket's syntax and macro system, by Alexis King
Re: Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]
#4It is time for Rusted !!!
Rust semantics with D syntax (garbage collector is a bonus).
Re: Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]
#5It is time for Rusted !!! Rust semantics with D syntax (garbage collector is a bonus).
Didn’t D get an ownership model, a la Rust’s affine types, relatively recently?
Re: Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]
#6The other way round, a Haskell on top of a Lisp, in production today: https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/
> Coalton is an efficient, statically typed functional programming language that supercharges Common Lisp.
Presentation this year on the ELS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of92m4XNgrM
Re: Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]
#7How does it compare to Shen?
Re: Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]
#8I will prempt the comment that always shows up in discussions of this kind: No. Typeclasses do not replace proper macros. Go home, you are drunk.
Another argument I've often heard is that laziness largely obviates macros. Personally, I agree that this is often true—but not always, and that last bit is where Lisp-style macros would be really nice.
(^^ edited based on one of the responses below.)
Re: Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]
#9How does it compare to Shen? https://shenlanguage.org
Kinda hard to tell when I can’t find a single example of the language on its website.
Re: Liskell – Haskell Semantics with Lisp Syntax [pdf]
#10I will prempt the comment that always shows up in discussions of this kind: No. Typeclasses do not replace proper macros. Go home, you are drunk.
Another argument I've often heard is that laziness largely obviates macros. Personally, I agree that this is often true—but not always, and that last bit is where Lisp-style macros would be really nice. (^^ edited based on one of the responses below.)
do you know of a post or something you could point to that elaborates that argument? interested because I'm having trouble coming up with the line of reasoning on my own