Tag: Programming Language

Racket on Racket?

There is a precedent for hosting other languages on top of Racket by compiling their syntax down to Racket. What got me thinking other languages on Racket was Shriram’s P4P article, and also to some degree a discussion surrounding Gambit’s SIX. It got me wondering…
Would PLT have anything to gain from providing a non-parenthesized language created specifically for Racket? What I mean is take Racket, remove the stuff too hard to do without parens, and offer that up as an “official” Racket language. This is not the same as implementing Java on Racket.
How difficult would it be to “come up with” such a language? I’m totally ignorant regarding language design. Would it be interesting… or boring and a waste of time?

A Proposal Against Parentheses in Racket

P4P:

This document proposes an alternate syntax for Racket. It reduces the parenthetical burden, makes the language appear more traditional, and respects indentation, though not in the way you think. It does all this while retaining the essence of Racket syntax, and even offering a high degree of tool reuse.

(via Racket-users)

Intel presentation about their new functional programming language

Via CUFP via Caml-list:

For five years Intel’s Programming Systems Lab (PSL) has been collaborating with an external partner on a new functional programming language designed for productivity on many-core processors. While the language is not yet public, this talk outlines motivations behind the language and describes our experiences in implementing it using a variety of functional languages. The reference interpreter is written in Haskell and compiled with GHC while PSL’s performance implementation is written in SML and compiled with Mlton. We have also generated Scheme code compiled with PLT Scheme as part of a prototyping effort.