[racket-users] Haskell Syntax -> S-expression

Hello List I'm posting this here because when looking for information about non S-expression syntax for Lisps I came across the Racket2 threads. Recently I've been using a simple Haskell Syntax -> S-expression translator to work interactively with a Scheme interpreter and I'm surprised by how

Re: [racket-users] Haskell

This may be of interest: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Write_Yourself_a_Scheme_in_48_Hours Though, as others have said, this sounds like a more typical usecase for racket. On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:23 AM Josh Rubin wrote: > It just occurred to me that Haskell could be a powerful way to

Re: [racket-users] Haskell

> On May 15, 2019, at 1:26 PM, Josh Rubin wrote: > > Type inference; laziness as the default; the language forces me to think in a > different way than racket (or scheme) makes me think. > > The examples I have seen have a breath-taking level of abstraction that > appeals to the

Re: [racket-users] Haskell

Type inference; laziness as the default; the language forces me to think in a different way than racket (or scheme) makes me think. The examples I have seen have a breath-taking level of abstraction that appeals to the mathematician in me. On 5/15/2019 12:46 PM, David Storrs wrote: What

Re: [racket-users] Haskell

What specific feature does Haskell offer that makes you select it for this purpose as opposed to a different language? It's possible that some other language (e.g. Racket) offers that feature and also others. On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:23 AM Josh Rubin wrote: > It just occurred to me that

Re: [racket-users] Haskell

The last time I saw a colleague sit down to write a compiler in Haskell, they first had to do a bunch of heavy lifting to get the type system to play along sensibly. http://offog.org/publications/fita200811-generics.pdf Your mileage may vary. I'd just use Racket. (See John's note.) Cheers, Matt

Re: [racket-users] Haskell

Hackett comes to mind, but that might be going in the opposite direction of what you are thinking. On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:40 AM 'John Clements' via Racket Users < racket-users@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Hmm… While I certainly agree that functional

Re: [racket-users] Haskell

Hmm… While I certainly agree that functional languages are good at manipulating program representations, this job (manipulating programs) is more or less *the one thing* that Racket does better than any other language. So… I guess I’d be more likely to use Racket to manipulate Haskell programs

[racket-users] Haskell

It just occurred to me that Haskell could be a powerful way to manipulate programs in other languages (like Scheme or Racket). Unfortunately, I don't know Haskell. Has anybody been down this path? -- Josh Rubin jlru...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the