deprecated-coalton-prototype VS schemeish

can't jerk

I used to use CL quite a bit, but have since abandoned it for Haskell, so I'm a bit biased.

There's a number of issues with that:

- I'd be missing all the optimizations that can be performed due to purity.

- There's more to Haskell's type system than just vanilla Hindley-Milner, and the implementation of it isn't particularly trivial. https://github.com/stylewarning/coalton is the closest thing and it's still missing a large amount of the type system.

- Doing the implementation would be a significant amount of work to get it to integrate well with the language, and it would be a layer tightly glued on top instead of integrated with the language.

- A major part of Haskell is the standard library, a good chunk of the semantics of Haskell people use on a day to day basis, like monads and etc, are a part of the standard library.

This looks like something Common Lisp does better, however I have too little Clojure experience to compare. CL (and SBCL in particular) does "good enough" static type checks, it throws warning at compile time (when we compile one function with a keystroke). We can also precise our function types gradually. It isn't a HM type system (Coalton[1] could be it) but it's already great (compared to no compile-time types at all).

Oh, about interactive development: that's sure, CL shines here. Objects get updated (lazily) after a class change, we can install Quicklisp libraries without restarting the image, etc. It's very smooth.

1: https://github.com/stylewarning/coalton

Help out with Coalton.

If you like this kind of stuff, maybe you can help implement type classes in Coalton.

(there's a work-in-progress library to add a dialect of ML on top of CL: coalton)

If you are interested in both I've been working on Scheme-ish which adds a lot of the functions and syntax from Scheme (of which Racket is an offshoot) into Common Lisp. Schemeish. it's like 80% where I want it to be, but it does need some more user-facing documentation.