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

From: Shriram Krishnamurthi (sk at cs.brown.edu)
Date: Sun Dec 21 20:39:10 EST 2008

Every language grows and changes over time.  What if you found out
after a while that your type system inhibited the growth of your
language?  So better to build atop the "untyped" language.

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?
> It is open for everyone.
> _________________________________________________
>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme

Posted on the users mailing list.