gerbil VS rhombus-prototype

That's a strange one! Can you go to https://github.com/mighty-gerbils/gerbil/issues and post an issue outlining this with slightly more detail? What platform, C compiler, libc version etc.

New in std library: an S3 client, an SMTP client, SSL for Postgres (enables Heroku support), better CLI support (including multicall binaries), and plenty of module updates. Plus a few minor bug fixes.

See Gerbil Scheme homepage https://cons.io

Here is the discussion: https://github.com/mighty-gerbils/gerbil/discussions/1008

Gerbil Scheme < https://cons.io > just saw its release v0.18, with many usability and documentation upgrades, and a bunch of new functionality in the standard library. A "meta-dialect of Scheme with post-modern features", Gerbil layers a Racket-like module system (the best in the world by far) on top of Gambit Scheme (compiler that produces the fastest code), with lots of libraries as "batteries included" for production-level client/server code.

I'm more into Scheme than CL, but am aware of Coalton. My current lisp is Gerbil: https://cons.io which already has a type annotation system and will be enhancing it for the next major release (v19).

Another "post-modern" natively compiling Scheme is Gerbil Scheme [0]. It's seeing a lot of attention/enhancements lately, including some bounties to implement features.

[0]: https://cons.io

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.