Untyped Scheme should be built on Typed Scheme? WAS: Re: [plt-scheme] macro question

From: Sam TH (samth at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 21 19:38:18 EST 2008

On Sun, Dec 21, 2008 at 7:31 PM, Grant Rettke <grettke at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi folks,
> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 7:36 PM, Grant Rettke <grettke at acm.org> wrote:
>> Hi Matthias,
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Matthias Felleisen
>> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>> On Jun 10, 2008, at 11:40 AM, hendrik at topoi.pooq.com wrote:
>>>> In my opinion, untyped Scheme needs to be built on top of typed Scheme,
>>>> not the other way around.  But until this revolution happens, I'm
>>>> happy to use it they way it is.
>>> NSF wasn't willing to fund a time machine, even when I promised I'd add cold
>>> fusion.
>> You were joking around here, but is there any truth to it?
>> Theoretically if you could start over, would you implement Untyped
>> Scheme on top of a Typed Scheme?
> Was this a dumb question or did no one reply because I only asked Matthias?

I think the current layering is the right one.  This is because in
general, it's better to build more complex systems from simpler ones,
and the untyped system is simpler.

sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu

Posted on the users mailing list.