lure VS rhombus-prototype

See related post. The dot operator in Rhombus will allow a function call like expr.map(…) to be statically specialized to Some.map(expr, …) provided that expr carries sufficient static information. This isn’t possible in Racket given the lack of static information in general.

If you want to know more the best starting point is https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype They have discussion on the GitHub repo

Racket has the concept of binding space built on top of the scope-set model. The experiment language Rhombus makes heavy use of this for contextual bindings. Note that bindings are used for language extensions among other purposes in Racket.

The notion of “tail sequence” in general doesn’t exist in Lisp’s macro-expansion model, since Lisp macros are strictly local transformations. A “tail sequence” allows a macro to control the expansion of the whole context, which requires wrapping the whole context in another macro in Lisp’s model. This is what leads to proposals like #%local-definition in Racket. However, this notion does exist in the enforestation model, which is what the experiment language Rhombus is based on, although it’s probably not quite a Lisp ;)

Rhombus is: - just another #lang. It is built on top of the existing Racket VM and written in Racket. It interoperates with existing Racket code and uses the Racket expander. - macro extendable. Hygiene and all of the good stuff work. - being developed in the open. We meet biweekly over Zoom, and discussions also occur in GitHub Discussions.

Querying Git references for rhombus-prototype at https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype.git Using cached16617263581661726358301 for https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype.git DrRacket install: version mismatch for dependency for package: https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype.git mismatch packages: base (have 8.6, need 8.6.0.9)

Instead of hoping, you might consider reading the discussions to see what the developers are actually saying. Just a thought.