[racket] Typed Racket vs. Haskell

Yesterday, thorsopia at lavabit.com wrote:
> 
> I'm going to write a library. I want it to be available for the
> largest number of people.  Can other Lisp-like languages
> (e.g. Guile) use libraries written in Typed Racket?

And Matthias Felleisen replied:
> 
> Typed Racket is designed for Racket. One day Guile will have a Typed
> Guile companion, and Chez Scheme may have a Typed Chez companion but
> until then TR is for Racket.

I see on the Guile list that you (thorsopia) took the above the wrong
way.  Developing statically typed code in TR and making it work later
on other Scheme implementations should be easy, since the TR type
system is intended to allow the same style of code that is used in
Racket, which is also similar to the style in other scheme
implementations.  The required "translation" step will be mostly
removing the type declarations.  Doing the same with Haskell etc would
most likely be much harder.

[The big caveat in the above is independent of TR: it's the usual one
about "Scheme" being a kind of a shrunked skeleton of a language core,
vs Racket being a practical tool.  The effort of writing some
"portable Scheme" can get to the point where you'd just as well go
with Haskell or raw machine code...]

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!