Hackett, a Haskell-Like Lisp in Racket

Re:Hackett, a Haskell-Like Lisp in Racket by stewbrew on Sunday January 19, 2020 @02:07PM (#22093219)

That's about what modern scheme should look like in 2020. Now let's turn this into r8rs and let the compilers take advantage of the extra information.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hackett, a Haskell-Like Lisp in Racket by bjoli on Sunday January 19, 2020 @03:34PM (#22093860)

Nah man, that is what Haskell should have looked like so we could have escaped the horrors of template Haskell.

I would love an ML-ified scheme, but I am not sure Hackett captures what scheme is, at least not after playing with it for a couple of hours. It feels very much like haskell.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hackett, a Haskell-Like Lisp in Racket by quelltext on Sunday January 19, 2020 @09:18PM (#22095723)

What are the horrors of Template Haskell?

I'm not too familiar with it but I can sort of see how it is a bit different in what it can offer from Lisp macros. However I'm not sure I know how good or bad TH is for what it DOES claim to be good at.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Hackett, a Haskell-Like Lisp in Racket by cnasc on Monday January 20, 2020 @08:11AM (#22098530)

> I would love an ML-ified scheme

From my brief experience with SML, it felt a lot like typed Scheme with different syntax (it even has call/cc).

Maybe there’s room for a coffeescript-like sexp syntax for SML

[ Parent | on HN ]