Zaphod programming language
- farrellm23: language design and implementation
- ZebraFish: moral support and brownies
- I wrote most of the type checker for Zaphod back in May, then dropped the project until taking it up again for the Jam at the beginning of August (see commit history).
- While I did most of my coding in emacs, I did play with the repl.it environment enough to get Haskell compiling and running.
A two headed language
How is Zaphod a two headed language? In several ways:
- Zaphod is like Scheme with Haskell's type system bolted on
- Zaphod's type system includes an explicit
Toptype, so "untyped"
functions and macros are possible
- [todo] Zaphod supports an alternative syntax that looks much more
Why does Zaphod exist?
Haskell's type system is great, but metaprogramming with Template
Haskell is clunky. Scheme has a great metaprogramming via macros, but
is untyped. Zaphod combines the two, with a powerful type system for
normal programming and macros for metaprogramming.
Dual syntax [todo]
Lisps are great for manipulating ASTs, but many programmers do not
enjoy the parenthesis heavy syntax. Python has a nice, clean syntax,
but is clunky for AST manipulations. Zaphod uses the same AST for
both Scheme and Python syntaxes, so code can be written with Python
syntax while AST manipulations (macros) can be written with Scheme
What does Zaphod look like?
;; line comments (* block comment *) ;; the unit value () ;; a (quoted) symbol 'zaphod ;; a tuple of three symbols - the following 4 produce the same value ['a 'b 'c] (tuple 'a 'b 'c) (cons 'a (cons 'b (cons c ()))) '(a b c) ;; a lambda expression (lambda (x) [x x])
() ;; the unit type Symbol ;; the type for symbols Top ;; universal return type (x . y) ;; pair type ;; tuple types, the following two are equivalent [x y z] (x . (y . (z . ()))) ;; function types, eg, a function from one symbol to another symbol (-> [Symbol] Symbol) ;; universal quantification, for parametric polymorphism (forall a (-> [a] a)) ;; the type of the identity function ;; hard to demonstrate, but symbols can also be types, eg, the type 'Bool
Defining a value
;; Explicit type (def name Symbol 'Zaphod) ;; Inferred type (def unit ())
Defining a function
(defn (id x) (forall a (-> [a] a)) x)
(def defn (-> [(Symbol . Top) Type Top] Top) (macro (p t e) ['def (car p) t ['lambda (cdr p) e]]))
(data Bool True False) (data (Maybe a) Nothing (Just a)) (defn (not p) (-> [Bool] Bool) (if p False True))
Why is Zaphod interesting?
Zaphod takes the minimalism of Scheme and applies it to Haskell's type
system. Take the
data "special form" is not a special form at all,
but a macro!
Bool is a symbol masquerading as a type, and
is a function from a type to tuple type.
are all symbols that have had their types overwritten, and
is, similarly a coerced tuple.
function. Normally, we would implement this with pattern matching,
but Zaphod doesn't have pattern matching yet, so we can abuse the
(defn (maybe d f m) (forall a (forall b (-> [b (-> [a] b) (Maybe a)] b))) (if (is-symbol m) d (f (unsafe-coerce (cadr m)))))
- Records (via a macro)
- Type classes (via macros, after adding implicit arguments)
- Numeric, string, character types
Dunfield, Joshua, and Neelakantan R. Krishnaswami. “Complete and Easy Bidirectional Typechecking for Higher-Rank Polymorphism.” Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming - ICFP ’13 (2013): n. pag. Crossref. Web.
Hello there! The jam required you to work in teams (which it seems like you did). However, you forgot to mention your team members in the post description. Please edit the post to include those too.