I suppose this is technically true for other languages (that have a spec...) but with Scheme it actually makes sense...
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I used Scheme back in the day and thought highly of it; but in recent years I've become far more skeptical of dynamically typed languages. Do you see a real use case for *not* having rich, static typing?
-
I'm using it as a compiler back end. Other than that my use case is entirely fun. And the fun isn't about the type system, but how everything else fits together. Macros, call-cc, etc.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
This turns out to be the problem as well. As with SML.
-
At least there is a spec. With Idris when I get stuck I look at the source code. I must fix this.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It discourages the maintainers from yielding to requests like "could you also please bolt on a drill press, a blowdrier, and null coalescing."
End of conversation
-
-
-
This is one if the reasons I prefer languages with complete specifications and am saddened each time GHC diverges from the Haskell Language Report, and each year we go without maintaining the report. The lack of spec is also a problem I have with Idris.

Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Out of curiosity, what kinds of things were you looking up in the spec?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Told you ;)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.