hackett VS klister

I am not super knowledgeable about this, but I think you might find Type Systems as Macros interesting. There is also the in-development language Hackett which uses the approach described in the paper to unify Racket style macros with a Haskell style type system.

I agree. I've been searching for solutions for a while. A few choices: - Common Lisp Coalton, very similar to Haskell. - Hackett, a Haskell-like DSL implemented in Racket. Licensing would be an issue, so it would have to be ported to Guile Scheme if you want to build an Emacs out of it. This is not easy since it takes advantage of several Racket-specific language features. - Shen, which can be built on top of Common Lisp, Scheme, Racket, or even Emacs Lisp. The drawback is that it is a fairly cryptic language, and extending foreign language bindings is not well documented. You would basically have to program the entirety of Emacs from scratch - PreScheme is a statically-typed (Hindley-Milner family) subset of Scheme that compiles to C. Originally written to build the Scheme-48 compiler, it is being ported to Guile. Not production read yet. - Zile is an editor engine built on Guile 2.0. But there is no static typing or algebraic data types, it is simply a replacement for Emacs written in Scheme from the ground-up. It needs to be ported to Guile 3.0. Guile 3 has an Emacs Lisp interpreter built-in, but it needs to be developed further before it could run more popular Emacs Lisp applications like Org-Mode or Magit.

Meh. As my final part in this exchange I will leave this here, conclusion are left to the reader: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/hackett/

My dream is something like Hackett, but alas, Alexis didn't have time to continue it. Someday ...

The documentation says it does: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/hackett/

But we can always import Coalton, or Hackett, or miniKanren into our Lisp program if we need it.

This doesn't really answer your question but you may be interested in checking out https://lexi-lambda.github.io/hackett/ by u/lexilambda.

Extremely difficult, but you can do some cool stuff with macros if you do it. Have a look at Alexis King's "Hackett" language for a cool example: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/hackett/

Yeah, that project is pretty much at the bottom of my list, unfortunately. My top projects these days are mgmt, klister, recursion-schemes, and hint... And that's already too much!

case is a special form, ie a bit of core syntax, but, interestingly, data is not. (It is presumably a macro; typechecking is actually done as a part of macro expansion.) The syntax remains pretty uniform. Or, in Klister, type ascription is done via normal S-expression syntax with a form called the, as (the $type $expression); again, the syntax is uniform.

Shameless plug: we don't have that problem in Klister, because our equivalent to main is a run macro which runs an IO action, and your alternate prelude can define its own run macro which expects an IO action from your alternate prelude.

Klister is very similar to Hackett, but implemented in Haskell instead of Racket, and my most recent PR is from 20 days ago, if that's the metric which counts for you. Still very much of a WIP though.

You might be interested in Klister: https://github.com/gelisam/klister

I've now also found an implementation for klister, which is meant to interleave type checking with macro expansion.

In Klister, which already has Scheme-like macros and Haskell-like types (polymorphism, algebraic types and higher-kinded types, but not yet fancier types like RankNTypes and GADTs), our plan to get the best of both worlds (lexical syntax and typed ASTs) is to separate parsing from macro evaluation. That is, users write their programs using the surface syntax of s-expressions, parsers parse those into typed ASTs, and macros are typed by the type of the ASTs they receive as input and produce as output. At this stage this is only a research idea, I don't know if that's going to work out yet, but I hope so!