Hacker News Reader

Comment by tines | Hacker News Reader

This is fantastic! Forth's simplicity is a great fit for exploratory programming on resource-constrained systems, and I'm a fan of anything homoiconic.

Maybe one day I'll get my dream of having a forth or lisp with the type system of haskell.

View on HN

Have you looked at Kitten? It's statically typed[0], and a descendant of Cat[1], which is a descendant of Joy[2]. So those might also be interesting languages to investigate

> The Kitten Programming Language

> Kitten is a statically typed, stack-based functional programming language designed to be simple and fast. It is a concatenative language, combining aspects of imperative and pure functional programming. There is an introduction available and a tutorial in progress.

http://kittenlang.org/

[0] http://evincarofautumn.blogspot.se/search/label/Concatenativ...

[1] http://www.codecommit.com/blog/cat/the-joy-of-concatenative-...

http://www.codecommit.com/blog/cat/the-joy-of-concatenative-...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joy_(programming_language)

Maybe Shen would work for you? [1] A Lisp with optional static type checking, optional lazy evaluation, pattern matching, a built-in Prolog, and more.

[1] http://www.shenlanguage.org/

Aren't these conflicting ideas? To me a big advantage of dynamic type systems is that specifying behaviour and specifying what parts of the behaviour are statically computed are separate tasks.

There are some strongly typed Forths --- although I've never seen one that was out of prototype. Here's one I had a brief look at:

http://www.arestlessmind.org/2009/02/03/intro.html

Of course, since Forths are built around a REPL, to do type checking you need to keep the type objects around at run time, so it may not be suitable for very small systems.

Yes, but they are not conflicting in the sense that they are competing to serve the same purpose.

For exploratory programming, dynamic type systems are nice. For building reliable long-running systems or ones where failure is extremely costly, I like static.

Yes. For example, the powerful "transducers" concept from Clojure essentially cannot be represented in the Haskell type system.

Here's an attempt: http://hypirion.com/musings/haskell-transducers

Did you see the Factor language?

Factor is cool, but never really took off or got much attention. The creator, Slava has moved on to other things (Swift compiler I think). I posted something on another concatenative language (kitten) on here recently and the author jumped on and the conversation was good (Factor was brought up as well).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com