[racket] Typed Racket vs. Haskell

> Yes, but you can't infer the _definitions_ of types.  So what I meant was,
> you must define your types before writing programs.  In Racket, you can just
> think about a class of data (e.g. "all the numbers and strings") and write a

not sure this is a black and white situation; seems like haskell/ml
have some pre-defined types that would already be covered, have
operations, be inferrable from the operations used.

>> i think it could be more that in non T Racket, you *cannot* use types
> I'm not sure what you mean.  You get a similar guarantee in TR.

i didn't write it well enough, apologies -- "non T Racket" meaning
"non-Typed Racket" as in old-school Racket, before TR existed.

sincerely.