Hacker News Reader

Comment by shpongled | Hacker News Reader

I like LISPs conceptually. However, I have a strong preference for static type systems, so I have probably written 10x more lines of code of LISP implementations than LISP code itself.

View on HN

A Common Lisp implementation may have static types:

    (defun foo (x)
      (declare (type fixnum x))
      (1- x))

If you don't specify them, types all default to T.

Although I like OCaml way better than lisp, there is some static typing in Common Lisp. Sure there would be a lot of T (basic object) in your signatures, but you can have some typing discipline within it (although not as strict and beautiful as in ML languages).

Racket has Typed Racket, you might want to try that out!

Have you tried it yourself though? That thing is so slow it's barely usable.

Is it the type checking or the runtime that's slow?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com