Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-20 Thread Anthony Carrico
On 01/17/2017 04:34 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > No, unfortunately you can't just higher kinds in Typed Racket. This is > a limitation we hope to lift eventually, though. I'm going to take a non-ranting stab at Matthias' compatibility objection, slightly formalizing the proposal. Robert

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-19 Thread Vincent St-Amour
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:42:17 -0600, Robert Kuzelj wrote: > > As far as I understand Haskell was breaking compatibility now then to > add new languae features. This enabled the fast iteration (albeit a > painful one). > On the other hand F# is the exact opposite - not only looking to > remain

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-19 Thread Robert Kuzelj
Am Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2017 17:17:18 UTC+1 schrieb Matthias Felleisen: > In case my CPSing obscured the prose, here is what I said: > > What I am really saying is that I supplemented the proposal with a research > challenge that is common in the Racket world. If you are here and you see the

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-19 Thread Matthias Felleisen
In case my CPSing obscured the prose, here is what I said: What I am really saying is that I supplemented the proposal with a research challenge that is common in the Racket world. If you are here and you see the blueprints for paradise over there, don’t just build paradise. Also build the

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-19 Thread Matthias Felleisen
You’re preaching to the choir. See Racket Manifesto. But you’re also preaching to the guy who got this project to where it is because "Types Suck” has been my slogan for decades. (I will leave it to figure out what that slogan means.) Since I am not a good programmer (according to your

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-19 Thread Anthony Carrico
On 01/19/2017 09:30 AM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > What do contemporary programmers want? They want some kind of static > proof that their interfaces are good. I didn't put the following in my rant, because why muddy a good rant? But to elaborate, they also want productivity, and that means

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-19 Thread Anthony Carrico
On 01/19/2017 09:50 AM, Robert Kuzelj wrote: > Wow! My question seems to be pretty upstirring. ;-) > But you are completely right - I am sniffing around Racket (Typed) bc strong > typing + meta programming look like a killer combo. > > And btw. yeah something will emerge ... or rather has

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-19 Thread Robert Kuzelj
Wow! My question seems to be pretty upstirring. ;-) But you are completely right - I am sniffing around Racket (Typed) bc strong typing + meta programming look like a killer combo. And btw. yeah something will emerge ... or rather has already emerged https://github.com/LuxLang/lux

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-19 Thread Anthony Carrico
On 01/18/2017 08:57 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > > And how would components in #lang typed/racket interact with components in > #lang kinded/racket interact? If this wasn't Matthias, I'd say whoever posted this missed the whole point of Racket. Since it is Matthias, I'll take this as an

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-19 Thread Robert Kuzelj
> And how would components in #lang typed/racket interact with components in > #lang kinded/racket interact? maybe (if there is no other way) not at all and there would a breaking of compatibility?! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users"

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-18 Thread Matthias Felleisen
And how would components in #lang typed/racket interact with components in #lang kinded/racket interact? > On Jan 18, 2017, at 8:16 PM, Anthony Carrico wrote: > > On 01/17/2017 05:31 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> The major obstacle is that the current kind system

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-18 Thread Anthony Carrico
On 01/17/2017 05:31 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > The major obstacle is that the current kind system design is not easy to > reconcile with higher kinds. This is mostly because the current system > is poorly designed, but we need to avoid breaking existing programs. Why is this an issue? #lang

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-17 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
The major obstacle is that the current kind system design is not easy to reconcile with higher kinds. This is mostly because the current system is poorly designed, but we need to avoid breaking existing programs. Sam On Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 11:19 AM Robert Kuzelj wrote: > Am

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-17 Thread Robert Kuzelj
Am Dienstag, 17. Januar 2017 10:34:54 UTC+1 schrieb Sam Tobin-Hochstadt: > No, unfortunately  you can't just higher kinds in Typed Racket. This is a > limitation we hope to lift eventually, though. Hi Sam, Thanks for the fast answer. Is there any specific obstacles that are in the way of

Re: [racket-users] Typed Racket & Higher Kinded Types

2017-01-17 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
No, unfortunately you can't just higher kinds in Typed Racket. This is a limitation we hope to lift eventually, though. Sam On Tue, Jan 17, 2017, 10:29 AM Robert Kuzelj wrote: > Hi, > > does Typed/Racket support higher kinded types? I couldn't find any infos > on the docs