- https://github.com/stylewarning/coalton - a library (pre-alpha): adding Hindley-Milner type checking to Common Lisp which allows for gradual adoption, in the same way Typed Racket or Hack allows for. It is as an embedded DSL in Lisp that resembles Standard ML or OCaml, but lets you seamlessly interoperate with non-statically-typed Lisp code (and vice versa).
Clojure's take on types is not so much that types are bad at micro scale, it's that focusing on proving referential transparency above all else leads to cultural problems at the macro scale. For example, the Datomic Peer API is the most elegant and ergonomic database API I've ever seen. Queries compose as functions under the illusion that the database is a local data structure and this results in a beautiful information model. But if you tried to put IO types on Datomic you find that it spews IO everywhere. And yet it works incredibly well with good enough performance for a wide band of applications! I think you don't find stuff like that in Pure FP ecosystems because those communities coordinate under principles of RT and algebra, and are thus unable to consider a solution space rooted in a different set of principles.
Do you have examples to illustrate the Datomic Peer API ergonomics you described? This is really interesting to me, and I’m still struggling to grok it.
I've personally never thought the cost of tracking mutation and IO in a type system is particularly worth the complexity and hassle. But for everything else, an advanced Hindley Milner derived type system is absolutely, 100% worth it.
I do think there might be some middle ground where you can annotate non pure functions in order to help the compiler with aggressive optimization.
> But if you tried to put IO types on Datomic you find that it spews IO everywhere.
So you put it in a monad and get on with your life? It's like one or two extra characters on your operators just to mark out where you're doing effect composition, and the benefit is that you can immediately see where all the effects are happening. Code is read more than it's written, so it's a really good tradeoff.
> And yet it works incredibly well with good enough performance for a wide band of applications!
How big is it, and how many people work on it? IME not tracking effects works great as long as everyone working on the codebase can keep the whole thing in their head. But you hit a wall (for me it's about 20kloc - I'm sure smarter people can push it a bit further, but everyone will have a limit eventually) once you can no longer reason about how one part affects every other part, and at that point a little helping hand from the compiler helps a lot.
The closest thing I can think of from the pure FP community that makes queries compose in a monad is Scala Slick, which adds an extraordinary amount of complexity to compose queries in exactly the wrong way. The whole FP community's thesis seems to be "take adderall and follow the math" and that thesis leads to Slick, not Datomic. (Both are early 2010s era so i think this is a fair comparison)
Slick is for querying traditional SQL RDBMSes, so it has to deal with a massive impedance mismatch compared to a greenfield project. I'd look at something like Facebook's Haxl (for querying GraphQL) for a fairer comparison IMO.
That reminds me, PG wrote that "static typing seems to preclude true macros" in http://www.paulgraham.com/hundred.html despite it being obviously incorrect.
After trying Typed Clojure, liking it, but giving it up because of Clojure's GPL-incompatible license, I got interested in Kawa Scheme because it has some rudimentary form of type checking. For example, this produces warnings:
(define (f1 x::String y::String) (x:concat y))
(define (f2) (f1 3 3))
;; /dev/tty:3:19: warning - type integer is incompatible with required type java.lang.String
;; /dev/tty:3:21: warning - type integer is incompatible with required type java.lang.String
;; /dev/tty:3:15: warning - cannot convert literal (of type gnu.math.IntNum) to Type java.lang.String
;; /dev/tty:3:15: warning - cannot convert literal (of type gnu.math.IntNum) to Type java.lang.String
Unfortunately it does not support fully static type checking nor generics, otherwise it would be my favorite scripting language hands down.
As for type checking Elisp, Elsa[1] seems an interesting project and I hope it becomes a stable option. On the other hand I wonder if in future type checking could also come from gccemacs[2], since one of the "long-term improvements" may be "better compile time warning and errors relying on the propagation engine".
If Racket had packages functionally equivalent to the ones on the JVM that I can't live without (Selenium, JGraphX, ...) I would start learning it right away. However sticking to the JVM and Kawa I get a vaguely similar typed/untyped experience except for the un-lispyness of Java. Usually when I write a script I make a new Java project that also pulls the dependencies and then embed Kawa (or jshell/ammonite jupyter server) for interactivity. Between the pom.xml and the code itself embedding Kawa (or jshell/ammonite) in a java program is like 10 lines at most.
> Racket's graph library can do everything jgraphx can do
What I need is to make a diagram from a file produced by diagrams.net without me writing the parser (JGraphX can already parse diagrams.net's xml), show me a window where I can select and adjust elements by hand, transform the diagram programmatically in a language where I have both type-checking and good completion for (eg) the selected objects, export back to diagrams.net's format. Occasionally I want to extend the already interactive window myself. I also evaluated Typed Racket before picking Kawa and the JVM, but JGraphX was just a more appropriate tool for this specific workflow.
> There's also this (and others) for selenium
I remember finding that, and I counted it as a subset of Selenium's functionality rather than equivalent.
I agree on the sentiment on Racket though, as for the language itself Java was a second choice for me. What eventually convinced me to invest in it was that I could always call what I had already written from other languages on the JVM (mainly Scala and Kawa, which also happen to have decent repls) without writing any glue code.
I was really excited when I started using racket that I could switch to static typing when I wanted it. However after trying out contract's, I must say I'm quite a fan of them as an alternative. Sure, you lose out on static, compile time checking, but honestly, I haven't missed it. And it's _even more_ seamlessly integrated into un-contracted code.
You can express more interesting things and complex relationships between parameters using the ->i contract than any type system I know of will allow. There's some limitations, but between it and unit testing, I've been having a blast.
I've tried racket/typed before and my knowledge or experience with it might be outdated, but sometimes I just could not get it to agree with my code. I fix one typing warning or thing it cannot infer and another would pop up. I fix the other, then a third pops up. I try to fix the third one, but realize I cannot and need to go back to the original state. When such things do not happen, it is very cool though. The code behing typed racket for me seems so mind bogglingly complex, I did not dare to investigate further. It is a language composed of macros, which use rackets macrology stuff, which is already more complex than other Schemes'. That language can be used to design any type system as far as I read about it.
With my typing trouble I should have come to the user list and asked, but I dId not, frustrated and thinking I was too stupid to get it ^^'
I did once at least see a question on the mailing list, where the answer was, that typed racket could not do it, as in infer types, so it might not be perfect yet, or perhaps it did improve since then.
I wish more Schemes could just copy the typed part of typed racket, using that macro language, as in theory they should be able to represent it, but I guess the devil is in the detail and slightly different workings of macro facilities.
Yes, it certainly has, but I think it's still based on that traditional syntax-case stuff. So in theory other Schemes could perhaps copy it, if anyone can get all the macrology behind it.
Also in theory it should be possible to express all the advanced Racket stuff in syntax-case.
Do you think it is not possible to express these things in syntax-case? And if so, why?
Not always. Quite a lot of contracts can be statically checked. Unfortunately the only contract checker [1] I have experience with is too slow to be useful on source code that is itself large enough to be really useful.
And in C# at least contracts can be disabled for release builds so that the performance penalty is only inflicted on the developers.
In the page you linked it says the text you are quoting refers to the EPLv2, while Clojure is licensed under the EPLv1 [1]. It seems [2] they discussed changing Clojure's license to EPLv2, but decided not to.
This is a good article but, the author doesn't show the limitations of type systems. If our world is small enough types can be very useful. There are many situations where we want to work in a small world.
>type's have always been there
I've seen this argument before and, I disagree with this statement as presented. The implication is that there is a type system underlying a language's semantics. But, really that's not true. It's more correct to say that objects have always been there.
28 comments
[ 127 ms ] story [ 2878 ms ] threadand also:
- https://medium.com/@MartinCracauer/static-type-checking-in-t... (by an author of the CLASP implementation, C++ & LLVM for CL)
- https://github.com/stylewarning/coalton - a library (pre-alpha): adding Hindley-Milner type checking to Common Lisp which allows for gradual adoption, in the same way Typed Racket or Hack allows for. It is as an embedded DSL in Lisp that resembles Standard ML or OCaml, but lets you seamlessly interoperate with non-statically-typed Lisp code (and vice versa).
Can you elaborate on what you mean by that?
I do think there might be some middle ground where you can annotate non pure functions in order to help the compiler with aggressive optimization.
So you put it in a monad and get on with your life? It's like one or two extra characters on your operators just to mark out where you're doing effect composition, and the benefit is that you can immediately see where all the effects are happening. Code is read more than it's written, so it's a really good tradeoff.
> And yet it works incredibly well with good enough performance for a wide band of applications!
How big is it, and how many people work on it? IME not tracking effects works great as long as everyone working on the codebase can keep the whole thing in their head. But you hit a wall (for me it's about 20kloc - I'm sure smarter people can push it a bit further, but everyone will have a limit eventually) once you can no longer reason about how one part affects every other part, and at that point a little helping hand from the compiler helps a lot.
As for type checking Elisp, Elsa[1] seems an interesting project and I hope it becomes a stable option. On the other hand I wonder if in future type checking could also come from gccemacs[2], since one of the "long-term improvements" may be "better compile time warning and errors relying on the propagation engine".
[1] https://github.com/emacs-elsa/Elsa [2] https://akrl.sdf.org/gccemacs.html
Edit: grammar.
And if you feel like types are too constraining for a part of your code, you can just leave them out. You get the best of both worlds!
http://planet.racket-lang.org/package-source/untyped/seleniu...
What I need is to make a diagram from a file produced by diagrams.net without me writing the parser (JGraphX can already parse diagrams.net's xml), show me a window where I can select and adjust elements by hand, transform the diagram programmatically in a language where I have both type-checking and good completion for (eg) the selected objects, export back to diagrams.net's format. Occasionally I want to extend the already interactive window myself. I also evaluated Typed Racket before picking Kawa and the JVM, but JGraphX was just a more appropriate tool for this specific workflow.
> There's also this (and others) for selenium
I remember finding that, and I counted it as a subset of Selenium's functionality rather than equivalent.
I agree on the sentiment on Racket though, as for the language itself Java was a second choice for me. What eventually convinced me to invest in it was that I could always call what I had already written from other languages on the JVM (mainly Scala and Kawa, which also happen to have decent repls) without writing any glue code.
There's no reason why you can't have types and contracts though. I personally can't live without compile time guarantees.
With my typing trouble I should have come to the user list and asked, but I dId not, frustrated and thinking I was too stupid to get it ^^'
I did once at least see a question on the mailing list, where the answer was, that typed racket could not do it, as in infer types, so it might not be perfect yet, or perhaps it did improve since then.
I wish more Schemes could just copy the typed part of typed racket, using that macro language, as in theory they should be able to represent it, but I guess the devil is in the detail and slightly different workings of macro facilities.
Do you think it is not possible to express these things in syntax-case? And if so, why?
And in C# at least contracts can be disabled for release builds so that the performance penalty is only inflicted on the developers.
[1] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/framework/debug-trac...
"GPL compatible: Optionally but not by default[3]"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eclipse_Public_License
[1] https://clojure.org/community/license [2] https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/clojure/uWAWm0xqrTI
>type's have always been there
I've seen this argument before and, I disagree with this statement as presented. The implication is that there is a type system underlying a language's semantics. But, really that's not true. It's more correct to say that objects have always been there.
[1] https://pmsf.eu/pub/cmucl/doc/cmu-user-old/compiler.html#toc...