Skip to content
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

Fast track transpiling to PureScript? #12

Closed
shelby3 opened this issue Sep 23, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

Fast track transpiling to PureScript? #12

shelby3 opened this issue Sep 23, 2016 · 2 comments
Labels

Comments

@shelby3
Copy link

shelby3 commented Sep 23, 2016

I need a working language pronto. As in last week I needed it. Not next week, not next month.

It will take us many months if not year or more before we can produce a stable language and compiler. Also we are having some disagreement (lack of mutual understanding) about how to handle the type theory of the compiler.

So I suggest we first decide on the syntax, so we (I) can produce a transpiler to PureScript and then use PureScript as the compiler. This would fast track testing the design of our syntax in working programs.

PureScript is lacking first-class, structural anonymous unions, so we won't be able to support that feature. Appears PureScript can support all our other features such data, typeclasses, and typeclass objects.

I want something tangible for my effort pronto. I don't want to go off on some long-winded effort, before getting feedback on the utility of our new syntax and concept.

I think an incremental approach to engineering is usually best. Design, implement, test, and repeat.

@keean what do you think?

@shelby3 shelby3 mentioned this issue Sep 23, 2016
@shelby3
Copy link
Author

shelby3 commented Sep 24, 2016

The problem is how to side-step the purity and lack of imperativity of PureScript while gaining its typechecker.

I thought about employing the FFI in that for the body of every function we emit, we place it in a JavaScript function and call it from the body of the emitting PureScript function. But then we lose typechecking within the body of the function, which we need in order for PureScript to typecheck the call sites.

Perhaps we could devise some transpiling (without type checking on our end?) from our syntax to the do notation? Probably not. 😞

Closing this because it is not feasible to do without building a type checker, which defeats the point.

@shelby3 shelby3 closed this as completed Sep 24, 2016
@shelby3
Copy link
Author

shelby3 commented Sep 24, 2016

@keean please assign label "Rejected".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants