[racket] Typed Racket vs. Haskell

From: Raoul Duke (raould at gmail.com)
Date: Tue Sep 18 16:59:59 EDT 2012

> No, by "types first" I think John and Vincent are talking about a conceptual
> order.  I would phrase it a little more subtly: an ML (or Haskell)
> programmer writes their types, then their programs (as you must); a TR
> programmer thinks about their data, writes down a program, then writes down
> the types (describing the data) they had in mind in the first place (and
> often were written down as comments).

i don't fully grok this but i'd guess there are other things going on as well.

i'm not sure what you mean by "as you must" since ml/haskell have type

i think it could be more that in non T Racket, you *cannot* use types
to do the work, so you have to "manually" do it with predicates.
whereas in typed languages, presumably you *want* to make use of the
types, because then you are getting static checking e.g. that you've
tested all constructors or whatever (not sure if/how that in
particular would work in ml/haskell, but in e.g. haxe the switch will
warn you if you miss a case).


Posted on the users mailing list.