[<<][meta][>>][..]
Sun Feb 21 08:56:54 CET 2010

Scheme vs. Serious Static Types

Types are hard.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe because some of the
abstractions are simply alien to me?  Maybe because programming with
logic is different than programming with functions/objects/...

From these two weeks of intense Haskell & OCaml study I think I can
re-appreciate Scheme and macros.  To some extent Scheme macros can
give similar payoff as type systems: provide a means to encode
high-level semantics that is interpreted at compile time.  Currently
I'm definitely more comfortable with having the same language at the
meta level (i.e. Scheme's `syntax-case' macros).  Maybe the truth is
in the middle: Typed Scheme?



[Reply][About]
[<<][meta][>>][..]