-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 50
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Vs. hackett #27
Comments
I think Hackett is still too immature to go around picking fights with it. For all I know, it may not even be around anymore within a year. I don't want to be dismissive, but in the time I've been working on Lux, I've already seen a few languages that were more mature than Hackett get abandoned by their creators, so I want to wait a bit longer until I treat Hackett as an actual rival. However, if you're fine with a quick summary of differences, here I go:
With that said, I'm intrigued by Hackett's way of doing types, and I read the paper from which the author got the idea. I'm currently thinking if there is some merit to switching to that system in the future, or if I'm better off sticking to what I have. But currently, the only interesting thing Hackett has over Lux is that particular type-system design. Note: Hackett's method implies that the language must actually be dynamically-typed and have its type-system bolted-on (which makes sense for Racket). I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with that, as some Lux users will undoubtedly abuse that and then that will cause trouble to the rest (which is why I'm not a fan of gradual typing). |
Would be interested to know how you stack against Hackett
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: