ALOE = Scheme + Smalltalk + Types
https://github.com/dharmatech/2026-09-02-aloe-racket
Prototype is in Racket.
ALOE = Scheme + Smalltalk + Types
https://github.com/dharmatech/2026-09-02-aloe-racket
Prototype is in Racket.
Thank you!
https://bjolang.koketteriet.se/
It uses local HM inference and traits instead of OO, and the concurrency is based on concurrentML. The design process was mostly about what I dont like about other languages and what I think racket and OCaml does correctly. All default data structures are immutable (using an RRB tree, a champ, b+trees and linked lists) with pretty fast implementations.
Speed wise it is about the same as c# without spans and ref structs, since that is what it compiles to.
Every function that touches IO is compiles in a sync and async variant, so writing "bjoroutines" is most of the time the same as writing regular code.
The GitHub page is borked, since they removed Org mode support a day ago, but the manual and reference can be found on the web page.
The colour situation is ok, but us still a bit rough wrt higher order functions.
https://news.microsoft.com/source/2001/10/22/massive-industr...
I am not around the MSFT Partner CDs with the .NET Framework 1.0 release, however I remember there was a Scheme compiler as part of the original samples.
So maybe target MSIL directly.
For delimited continuations I only managed to find mostly extremely inefficient ways of doing it. CPS transformations on dotnet are, at least if kept to be useful as delcc, slow as molasses.
Which is ultimately why I chose to compile to c# to use asyncmethodbuilder do do the state machine translation for me.
https://www.jot.fm/issues/issue_2004_10/article4
I thought otherwise given my recollection of the samples, and that the platform supports C++, thus quite flexible on the opcodes.
Now I am generating two bodies for every defun that touches any suspending function, using asyncmethodbuilder, meaning I don't get any of the runtimeasync benefits coming in dotnet11.
Hopefully they'll give us a new asyncmethodbuilder that is somewhat more constrained but guarantees runtime async.
Here's a video demo of the code completion in vscode:
(my-account 'balance)
(my-account 'withdraw 10)We can also create objects that handle deposits as well as withdrawals, and thus we can represent simple bank accounts. Here is a procedure that returns a “bank-account object” with a specified initial balance:
(define (make-account balance)
(define (withdraw amount)
(if (>= balance amount)
(begin (set! balance
(- balance amount))
balance)
"Insufficient funds"))
(define (deposit amount)
(set! balance (+ balance amount))
balance)
(define (dispatch m)
(cond ((eq? m 'withdraw) withdraw)
((eq? m 'deposit) deposit)
(else (error "Unknown request:
MAKE-ACCOUNT" m))))
dispatch)
Each call to make-account sets up an environment with a local state variable balance. Within this environment, make-account defines procedures deposit and withdraw that access balance and an additional procedure dispatch that takes a “message” as input and returns one of the two local procedures. The dispatch procedure itself is returned as the value that represents the bank-account object. This is precisely the message-passing style of programming that we saw in 2.4.3, although here we are using it in conjunction with the ability to modify local variables.3.1.1 Local State Variables
https://sarabander.github.io/sicp/html/3_002e1.xhtml#g_t3_00...
Here's a video demo of the code completion in vscode:
You can exchange the order, like on Dylan and Julia, however note how both declare them as if they were regular functions in non-OOP languages.
However. "Send, not apply" - sigh.. how shall I put it.. let's try this - eyes_rolling_so_hard_they_fall_out_of_sockets.png