digikar99
/ why-coalton-is-a-language.org
Last active
May 2, 2026 00:44
An attempt at introducing Coalton to lispers without a background in ML-like languages
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| #+title: Coalton: Why is the interop not easier, and why might it be necessary for Coalton to be an entire language in itself? | |
| #+begin_quote | |
| If you came here searching for the context in which some reddit comments were written, you might want to check out [[https://gist.github.com/digikar99/b76964faf17b3a86739c001dc1b14a39/7fa82e427da23d125ab28bb800bf0a883f457c22][this previous version]] of the article. | |
| #+end_quote | |
| [[https://coalton-lang.github.io/post/][Several blog posts]] have been written about Coalton, about how it can be useful and what it brings to the table. However, to me, it hasn't been clear why Coalton is /the/ way to solve the problems that it does solve. Isn't a simpler solution possible without making a full embedded language, and giving users the cognitive overhead of thinking about interop between normal lisp and coalton? | |
| I have been thinking about this for a while as one of my pasttimes, and below I'll summarize the better reasons why coalton might be the way it is. Perhaps, I couldn't se |