rhombus-prototype VS babashka

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.

It also gives you access to Babashka if you want Clojure for other use-cases where start-up time is an issue

https://babashka.org/

I've tried researching this myself and can't find too much. There's this project metaes which is an mci for JS, and there's the SCI module of the Clojure babashka project, but that's about it. I also saw Triska's video on mci but it was pretty theoretical.

Created by the same guy who created babashka which is a way to write bash scripts, node scripts, and even apple scripts using Clojure. A very proficient and influential developer in the Clojure community. This is how borkduke's neil helps us:

Not what you asked for but there is Babashka for scripting in Clojure.

https://github.com/babashka/babashka

Clojure's lazy sequences by default are wonderful ergonomically, but it provides many ways to use strict evaluation if you want to. They aren't really a hassle either. I've been doing Clojure for the last few years and have a few grievances, but overall it's the most coherent, well thought out language I've used and I can't recommend it enough.

There is the issue of startup time with the JVM, but you can also do AOT compilation now so that really isn't a problem. Here are some other cool projects to look at if you're interested:

Malli: https://github.com/metosin/malli

Babashka: https://github.com/babashka/babashka

Clerk: https://github.com/nextjournal/clerk

Being a Clojure addict, I guess I have to leave the obligatory link to Babashka too then: https://github.com/babashka/babashka (Native, fast starting Clojure interpreter for scripting)

which is now on hiatus. babashka: https://babashka.org

I've enjoyed babashka for scripting; which is close enough to clojure to allow using some/many libraries; but (probably) not for embedding.