Nevertheless, for one not acquainted with the history, I'm quite sure this was a heartfelt compliment and one that should be taken in the spirit given, no?
Robby On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Matthias Felleisen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Feb 22, 2011, at 7:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote: > >> >> You should have written the compiler in ML. -- Matthias >> > > Since not even some of my oldest students understand this remark, > let me explain this answer in gory detail. > > 1. The idea that changing data definitions demand a typed language > is the oldest argument in favor of statically (soundly) typed languages > such as ML and Haskell. It was used in the 1980s, especially by the NJ > faction. I was inundated with the argument during my CMU sabbatical in > the mid 1990s. > > 2. The idea that this is especially true for the development of a compiler > is a tad older. All the people who wanted to automatically translate some > semantic spec (usually denotation) into compilers discovered two things: > -- the semantics changes, especially the domains > -- the manual translation for exploring automatic translations suffer > See Mitch's SPS from 1983 and Peter Mosses's dissertation in the late 70s > and many more. > > I believe that ML -- especially SML -- accumulated its local following > because all these people were writing compilers and teaching interpreters. > > 3. Typed Scheme/Racket was conceived as a way to move from untyped code > to typed code so that we could eventually enjoy the same advantages as > ML and Haskell during maintenance (1). But it is definitely a language > that compromises with this idea. The compromise is visible in many > usage aspects. The only way to defend these compromising weaknesses > is to point to its true role in our tool chain. > > So for someone to say "I wrote a compiler and TR was good for it" > seems to completely miss the point. It would be a true and deserved > compliment if the post read like this > > -- I wrote a compiler > -- I benefited from TR because ... > -- And I need X Y and Z from R because pedestrian languages > such as ML and Haskell don't support it > > As is, it is almost a two-edged compliment. A mean-spirited MLer > or Haskeller -- not that there are any -- would and should reply > with "told you so. You should have used ML or Haskell and you > would have been even more productive." > > -- Matthias > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
