Hi Jeroen,
I mostly lurk on this list, but I was struck by your combative tone.
To pick on two random bits:
> … a 6gb tarball with manually built things on his personal machine…
> … a black-box system that is so opaque and complex that only one person
> knows how it works, and would make it mu
As long as the semantic models are close, then such a translation is
possible and not even very difficult. Syntactic sugar is cheap.
The challenge that you will run into is that there is a temptation
to change the semantics when designing a new language. R has many
warts that, if one were to start
Everything is possible. One can compile C++ into JavaScript.
But why?
> On Mar 4, 2019, at 6:28 PM, Abs Spurdle wrote:
>
> It may be possible to create an R-like programming language that
> transcompiles into R code (or otherwise constructs R objects and calls
> R functions).
>
> I'm not sure
>
> I think there's a bit of that flavour here:
>
> vec_c(factor("a"), Sys.Date())
> #> Error: No common type for factor and date
>
> This isn't a type system imposed by the language, but I don't think
> that's a reason not to call it a type system.
All I am saying is that without a clear def
> I'm now confident that I
> can avoid using "type" by itself, and instead always use it in a
> compound phrase (like type system) to avoid confusion. That leaves the
> `.type` argument to many vctrs functions. I'm considering change it to
> .prototype, because what you actually give it is a zero-l
