typed-racket
rhombus-prototype
typed-racket | rhombus-prototype | |
---|---|---|
5 | 24 | |
506 | 299 | |
2.0% | 2.3% | |
7.4 | 9.7 | |
9 days ago | 4 days ago | |
Racket | Racket | |
GNU General Public License v3.0 or later | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
typed-racket
-
Experimenting with the new Typed Racket modes
Turns out, Shallow was slower than it needed to be for types of built-in math (+, *, ...). PR here: https://github.com/racket/typed-racket/pull/1316
- Racket->Rhombus: To Sexp or not to Sexp?
-
Coalton: How to Have Our (Typed) Cake and (Safely) Eat It Too, in Common Lisp
Last weekend, I put together a working sample for how to show multiple syntax errors from Racket macros. It works in DrRacket and racket-xp-mode. It's based on Typed Racket.
https://gist.github.com/srcreigh/f341b2adaa0fe37c241fdf15f37...
The well-documented Racket `raise-syntax-error` will let you display 1 syntax error at a time. It works by throwing an exception during macro expansion hence you only get 1 error in your IDE. That code lets you highlight 2+ errors.
Please build a type system in Racket! I would love to try it out.
Helpfully, the above sample code is an example of how to store compiler-level state. So next, just wrap all your base forms, add some type declaration syntax, type inference, etc.
I would love to have a language that can be used to define a customized type system in Racket.
Typed Racket is an incredible feat. Can you imagine adding an entire type system without writing a separate compiler? Using all the batteries included with your language?
However I don't like that Typed Racket enforces soundness with Runtime checks, I much prefer TypeScript style checking. I also have run into some pretty confusing messages ie [1]. Diversity is healthy, it'd be nice to have static typechecking systems to choose from for Racket.
[1] https://github.com/racket/typed-racket/issues/1021
-
Creating Languages in Racket (2011)
> I like how TS is unsound (has no runtime performance penalty for mixing untyped code), and is easily disabled via any if it's in the way.
This is already done. See https://github.com/racket/typed-racket/pull/952 for RFC and https://github.com/racket/typed-racket/pull/948 for the implementation.
rhombus-prototype
-
Why does Racket have Type-Maps instead of Just a Single Map?
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.
- State of Rhombus
-
Rhombus-in-the-rough: A 2D RPG implemented in the Rhombus Racket dialect
If you want to know more the best starting point is https://github.com/racket/rhombus-prototype They have discussion on the GitHub repo
-
Multiple namespaces?
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.
-
Generalized and first-class macros: what is this called?
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 ;)
- Lang Rhombus
-
Anyone else concerned that Rhombus/Racket2 is not a lisp based language?
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.
- Anyone aware of Racket projects that are in need of contributors? I am experienced in PL design and have two months worth of spare time. I have never contributed to an opensource project before besides taureg.
-
Racket->Rhombus: To Sexp or not to Sexp?
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.
What are some alternatives?
iracket - Jupyter kernel for Racket
swi-mqtt-pack - MQTT pack for SWI-Prolog
racketscript - Racket to JavaScript Compiler
SmalltalkVimMode - Vim Mode for Playground, System Browser, Debugger in Pharo.
mlton - The MLton repository
sham - A DSL for runtime code generation in racket
frog - Frog is a static blog generator implemented in Racket, targeting Bootstrap and able to use Pygments.
gerbil - Gerbil Scheme
racket-mode - Emacs major and minor modes for Racket: edit, REPL, check-syntax, debug, profile, and more.
algol60
inspector - Turn Clojure specs into clj-kondo type annotations