On Mar 15, 2015, at 12:41 PM, Alexis King wrote: >> >> But I don't think that approaching this as "forking TR" is a good >> idea. TR has managed to successfully handle a wide variety of tricky >> Racket features, and I'm sure we can do generics too. > > I want to make it clear that I never intended making any sort of permanent > fork of the language. I’d view that as extremely stupid, especially given the > relatively small, already-fragmented userbase of Racket. I was just > considering the idea of spinning off an experimental fork to test out some > ideas, not intending to merge it back into TR at any point, but also not > intending to keep it around once it had served its purpose. >
I understood that, and again, I encourage you to play and be prepared to fail and to be frustrated. [I consider this (if it doesn't happen too often) a part of the joy of doing what I do.] > I’d certainly be interested in building a language in Racket with > Haskell-like semantics but with the syntactic power of Racket. I don’t think > I’d go for the full power of Haskell, but maybe something a little softer to > still permit Racket interoperability while forgoing the need to support > existing Racket idioms. There is no power in syntax :-] -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-dev/59A22F95-EABB-4734-8A0F-E633CA050252%40ccs.neu.edu. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
