Hacker News Reader

Comment by samth | Hacker News Reader

How will this compare to Typed Racket and Typed Clojure? In particular, Typed Clojure works with Clojure's multi-methods, I believe.

Also, you should have a look at Andrew Wright's work on Soft Scheme, which also used row polymorphism to statically analyze and check Scheme programs.

View on HN

There's also OpenDylan (http://opendylan.org/) and we're even considering adding an s-expression syntax back as an alternative...

does it currently - or are there plans to - compile to js?

We'd love to do that. We just lack the manpower. There are a couple of possible approaches ... one is a compiler backend similar to our C backend. Another is to try out emscripten.

If you're interested in helping out, would love to chat. We're on #dylan on freenode.

Typed Racket[1] has the advantage of being completely inter-operable with dynamically typed Racket - I can (and have) imported dynamically typed modules and used them in (statically) typed modules, as well as imported (statically) typed modules and used them in dynamically typed ones.

You can even turn off the static type checking while keeping the type annotations. Not to mention that the type system is incredibly powerful and expressive.

It's literally the best of both worlds.

[1] http://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-guide/

Typed Racket's static-dynamic is due to its module system: modules allow for seperate compilation, and the type-checker accepts accepts fully typed modules, not mix-code fragments.

However, Siek's Gradual Typing does handle mix-type expressions at finer-grain.

You can use the `with-type` form to embed typed expressions in larger untyped modules in Racket. Also, submodules let you accomplish more of this as well, without needing to put your modules in separate files.

Typed Clojure multimethod support is work in progress, but closing in.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com