I'm not sure I'd say this is "the other way around"; Coalton strives to implement Haskell or ML-adjacent semantics (in the type system, for example) with Lisp syntax. "With" here meaning that it is both implemented in and written with Lisp syntax.
Edit: I think I see what you mean now. Lisp backend vs Haskell backend.
Anyway, Coalton is a joy to use and IMO a breath of fresh air in CL. It's quite easy start using as a library; go all-in or only use it in specific parts of the code. It's great to be able to choose between (or intermix)the flexibility of CL and the guarantees of a statically typed language (as well as some nice performance boosts with arguably less work). Some aspects are still young (some of the standard library, ecosystem, editor support), but it's quite thoughtfully crafted and I'm excited to see where it goes.
Another argument I've often heard is that laziness largely obviates macros. Personally, I agree that this is often true—but not always, and that last bit is where Lisp-style macros would be really nice.
The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said "Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?" Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, "Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man's closures."
Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire "Lambda: The Ultimate..." series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress.
On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man's closures." Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's object."
do you know of a post or something you could point to that elaborates that argument? interested because I'm having trouble coming up with the line of reasoning on my own
I'm having trouble finding anything concrete online (other than people simply repeating the folk wisdom) other than control flow operators, which are implemented as normal functions in Haskell (i.e. including custom control flow operators).[0] Although, one Reddit comment[1] did also mention typeclasses as obviating other types of macros, so I've edited my earlier comment accordingly.
The other way round, a Haskell on top of a Lisp, in production today: https://github.com/coalton-lang/coalton/
> Coalton is an efficient, statically typed functional programming language that supercharges Common Lisp.
Presentation this year on the ELS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=of92m4XNgrM
I'm not sure I'd say this is "the other way around"; Coalton strives to implement Haskell or ML-adjacent semantics (in the type system, for example) with Lisp syntax. "With" here meaning that it is both implemented in and written with Lisp syntax.
Edit: I think I see what you mean now. Lisp backend vs Haskell backend.
Anyway, Coalton is a joy to use and IMO a breath of fresh air in CL. It's quite easy start using as a library; go all-in or only use it in specific parts of the code. It's great to be able to choose between (or intermix)the flexibility of CL and the guarantees of a statically typed language (as well as some nice performance boosts with arguably less work). Some aspects are still young (some of the standard library, ecosystem, editor support), but it's quite thoughtfully crafted and I'm excited to see where it goes.
There's also Hackett: Haskell with Racket's syntax and macro system, by Alexis King
To save folks a search:
github repo: https://github.com/lexi-lambda/hackett
Documentation: https://lexi-lambda.github.io/hackett/
I will prempt the comment that always shows up in discussions of this kind:
No. Typeclasses do not replace proper macros. Go home, you are drunk.
Another argument I've often heard is that laziness largely obviates macros. Personally, I agree that this is often true—but not always, and that last bit is where Lisp-style macros would be really nice.
(^^ edited based on one of the responses below.)
The venerable master Qc Na was walking with his student, Anton. Hoping to prompt the master into a discussion, Anton said "Master, I have heard that objects are a very good thing - is this true?" Qc Na looked pityingly at his student and replied, "Foolish pupil - objects are merely a poor man's closures."
Chastised, Anton took his leave from his master and returned to his cell, intent on studying closures. He carefully read the entire "Lambda: The Ultimate..." series of papers and its cousins, and implemented a small Scheme interpreter with a closure-based object system. He learned much, and looked forward to informing his master of his progress.
On his next walk with Qc Na, Anton attempted to impress his master by saying Master, I have diligently studied the matter, and now understand that objects are truly a poor man's closures." Qc Na responded by hitting Anton with his stick, saying "When will you learn? Closures are a poor man's object."
At that moment, Anton became enlightened.
Some fun code examples in Ruby: https://medium.com/@citizen428/of-closures-and-objects-e9507...
do you know of a post or something you could point to that elaborates that argument? interested because I'm having trouble coming up with the line of reasoning on my own
I'm having trouble finding anything concrete online (other than people simply repeating the folk wisdom) other than control flow operators, which are implemented as normal functions in Haskell (i.e. including custom control flow operators).[0] Although, one Reddit comment[1] did also mention typeclasses as obviating other types of macros, so I've edited my earlier comment accordingly.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/5xge0v/comment/deh...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/1929xn/comment/c8k...
This is not a direct response to the question of how laziness obviates the need for macros, but it mentions some specific relevant cases:
https://augustss.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-points-for-lazy-e...
I'll get in trouble if I show up this drunk at this hour, can't I just bolt on a templating system?
Date of publication is from 2007.
How does it compare to Shen?
https://shenlanguage.org
Kinda hard to tell when I can’t find a single example of the language on its website.
Savior of the universe.
I was told Lisp didn’t have syntax.
It is time for Rusted !!!
Rust semantics with D syntax (garbage collector is a bonus).
Didn’t D get an ownership model, a la Rust’s affine types, relatively recently?