typedclojure
proposal
typedclojure | proposal | |
---|---|---|
5 | 46 | |
443 | 3,290 | |
2.0% | 0.4% | |
9.2 | 4.4 | |
11 days ago | about 2 months ago | |
Clojure | Go | |
Eclipse Public License 1.0 | BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License |
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.
typedclojure
-
Does Go Have Subtyping?
...and Typed Racket is a really powerful type system (see refinement types[4]). So, I thought it's just a matter of time for Clojure to get to that level of power and support. It should be much easier to do this to Clojure than to Ruby, given that you have a working example of how to do it well. So I'm really surprised Clojure isn't gradually typed by now, with most of the code being annotated and type-checked at compile time.
[1] https://github.com/clojure/core.typed
[2] https://github.com/typedclojure/typedclojure
[3] https://github.com/typedclojure/typedclojure/blob/main/examp...
[4] https://docs.racket-lang.org/ts-reference/Experimental_Featu...
-
What is most in need in Clojure open-source ecosystem?
you mean with typedclojure?
- Questions about Rich Hickey's comments on static types
-
What is it like to write a large project in a dynamically-typed language?
I'm talking about the fact that a particular dynamic language has it, whether some people use it or not is moot. https://github.com/typedclojure/typedclojure is the successor to the erstwhile popular core.typed library, and normal Clojure itself allows for type annotations to (potentially) help improve performance.
-
Tour of our 250k line Clojure codebase
Seeing that there is a need for type checking in Clojure. Has anyone used https://github.com/typedclojure/typedclojure in production?
proposal
-
Does Go Have Subtyping?
The conclusion is pretty weird to me.
Go does rely on monomorphization for generics, just like C++ and Rust. The only difference is that this is an implementation detail, so Go can group multiple monomorphizations without worrying about anything else [1]. This form of hybrid monomorphization is being increasingly common, GHC does that and Rust is also trying to do so [2], so nothing special for Go here.
On the other hand, explaining variance as a lifted polymorphism is---while not incorrect per se---also weird in part because a lack of variance is at worst just an annoyance. You can always make an adopter to unify heterogeneous types. Rust calls it `Box`, Go happens to call it an interface type instead. Both languages even do not allow heterogeneous concrete (or runtime) types in a single slice! So variance has no use in both languages because no concrete types are eligible for variance anyway.
I think the conclusion got weird because the term "subtyping" is being misused. Subtyping, in the broadest sense, is just a non-trivial type relation. Many languages thus have a multiple notion of subtyping, often (almost) identical to each other but sometimes not. Go in particular has a lot of them, and even some relation like "T implements U" is a straightforward record subtyping. It is no surprise that the non-uniform value representation has the largest influence, and only monomorphization schemes and hetero-to-homogeneous adapters vary in this particular group.
[1] https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/generi...
[2] https://rust-lang.github.io/compiler-team/working-groups/pol...
- Backward Compatibility, Go 1.21, and Go 2
-
Defining interfaces in C++ with ‘concepts’ (C++20)
https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/generi...
-
Why Turborepo is migrating from Go to Rust – Vercel
Go Team wanted generics since the start. It was always a problem implementing them without severely hurting compile time and creating compilation bloat. Rust chose to ignore this problem, by relying on LLVM backend for optimizations and dead code elimination.
-
Are you a real programmer if you use VS Code? No Says OP in the byte sized drama
Hold up, did the members actually push this forward or was support just often memed about and suddenly this proposal was made: https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/43651-type-parameters.md
-
Major standard library changes in Go 1.20
As far as I can tell, the consensus for generics was "it will happen, but we really want to get this right, and it's taking time."
I know some people did the knee-jerk attacks like "Go sucks, it should have had generics long ago" or "Go is fine, it doesn't need generics". I don't think we ever needed to take those attitudes seriously.
> Will error handling be overhauled or not?
Error handling is a thorny issue. It's the biggest complaint people have about Go, but I don't think that exceptions are obviously better, and the discriminated unions that power errors in Rust and some other languages are conspicuously absent from Go. So you end up with a bunch of different proposals for Go error handling that are either too radical or little more than syntactic sugar. The syntactic sugar proposals leave much to be desired. It looks like people are slowly grinding through these proposals until one is found with the right balance to it.
I honestly don't know what kind of changes to error handling would appear in Go 2 if/when it lands, and I think the only reasonable answer right now is "wait and find out". You can see a more reasonable proposal here:
https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/go2dra...
Characterizing it as a "lack of vision" does not seem fair here--I started using Rust back in the days when boxed pointers had ~ on them, and it seemed like it took Rust a lot of iterations to get to the current design. Which is fine. I am also never quite sure what is going to get added to future versions of C#.
I am also not quite sure why Go gets so much hate on Hacker News--as far as I can tell, people have more or less given up on criticizing Java and C# (it's not like they've ossified), and C++ is enough of a dumpster fire that it seems gauche to point it out.
-
Go's Future v2 and Go's Versioning
There will almost certainly not be a Go 2 in that sense. There is a Go 2 transition doc which extensively discusses what "Go 2" means. The conclusion is
-
What's the status of the various "Go 2" proposals?
As it says on that page - those were not proposals. They were draft ideas to get feedback on. You can see the list of proposals in this repository: https://github.com/golang/proposal
-
An alternative memory limiter for Go based on GC tuning and request throttling
Approximately a year ago we faced with a necessity of limiting Go runtime memory consumption and started work on our own memory limiter. At the same time, Michael Knyszek published his well-known proposal. Now we have our own implementation quite similar to what has been released in 1.18, but there are two key differences:
- Shaving 40% off Google’s B-Tree Implementation with Go Generics
What are some alternatives?
missionary - A functional effect and streaming system for Clojure/Script
go - The Go programming language
schema-inference - Schema Inference of Malli Schemas
vscode-gremlins - Gremlins tracker for Visual Studio Code: reveals invisible whitespace and other annoying characters
integrant - Micro-framework for data-driven architecture
avendish - declarative polyamorous cross-system intermedia objects
clip - Light structure and support for dependency injection
too-many-lists - Learn Rust by writing Entirely Too Many linked lists
jank - A Clojure dialect hosted on LLVM with native C++ interop
go-generic-optional - Implementation of Optionals in Go using Generics
coc-clojure - coc.nvim plugin for clojure-lsp
go_chainable - With generics, allowing chainable .Map(func(...)).Reduce(func(...)) syntax in go