Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Buzz, strongly typed scripting language written in Zig

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: Show HN: Buzz, strongly typed scripting language written in Zig

#41

Post by PartiallyTyped »

jerf wrote: post #39

Curious what the author is thinking of when calling this a "scripting language"? I personally don't have much trouble imagining a strongly-typed scripting language, but that definitely goes against the flow of the past couple of decades. Is it that it is garbage collected? That's about all I can see that would make this immediately obviously a "scripting language". It doesn't seem like it ought to be intrinsically as…

I don’t want to be that person but technically python is a strongly typed scripting language as it has no type coercion but instead uses structural typing.

Re: Show HN: Buzz, strongly typed scripting language written in Zig

#44

Post by giann »

pmarreck wrote: post #43

> object ... You already lost me there. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ https://suzdalnitski.medium.com/oop-will-make-you-suffer-846...

They are more like structs with methods. There’s no inheritance only protocols (interfaces) you can conform to.

Buzz is not an OOP language.

Re: Show HN: Buzz, strongly typed scripting language written in Zig

#45

Post by semiquaver »

> No nonsense coercion

Given that the focus is on being unambiguous I found this line a bit amusing. Maybe it’s me but I can’t tell for sure whether this describes a quality of the language’s coercion mechanism or a promise that the language will include no such “nonsense” like e.g. javascript :)

Re: Show HN: Buzz, strongly typed scripting language written in Zig

#46

Post by giann »

semiquaver wrote: post #45

> No nonsense coercion Given that the focus is on being unambiguous I found this line a bit amusing. Maybe it’s me but I can’t tell for sure whether this describes a quality of the language’s coercion mechanism or a promise that the language will include no such “nonsense” like e.g. javascript :)

This means the language will never coerce things for you implicitly. Booleans are true and false not 1 and 0 or “true” and “false” etc.

Re: Show HN: Buzz, strongly typed scripting language written in Zig

#47

Post by jorams »

Looks neat! Reading the docs only a few things stand out as odd to me:

- The common types are written as fully lowercase, shortened words (str, num, fib) but then function types are written as Function(). That seems like a weird exception.

- The use of a comma to delimit object fields, but a semicolon to delimit static fields, seems arbitrary.

- If brackets around control flow blocks are required, which they seem to be, then parentheses around the conditions seem unnecessary.

Re: Show HN: Buzz, strongly typed scripting language written in Zig

#48

Post by fzzzy »

jerf wrote: post #39

Curious what the author is thinking of when calling this a "scripting language"? I personally don't have much trouble imagining a strongly-typed scripting language, but that definitely goes against the flow of the past couple of decades. Is it that it is garbage collected? That's about all I can see that would make this immediately obviously a "scripting language". It doesn't seem like it ought to be intrinsically as…

You might be thinking about the distinction between statically typed and dynamically typed languages. There are plenty of strongly typed scripting languages. Python is strongly typed; JavaScript is weakly typed.

Re: Show HN: Buzz, strongly typed scripting language written in Zig

#49

Post by macintux »

rho4 wrote: post #9

just for your information: the logo resembles islamic flags

I don’t think it matters in the slightest, but you’re absolutely correct, there is a resemblance. I don’t know how that became open to subjective debate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_and_crescent

Re: Show HN: Buzz, strongly typed scripting language written in Zig

#50

Post by michaelmrose »

masklinn wrote: post #24
_8j50 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The logo shows purple to me and it isn't a crescent, cuts off ar the bottom.

> The logo shows purple to me It seems to be an extremely dark purple, on a white background it's genuinely indistinguishable from black. > it isn't a crescent, cuts off at the bottom. Which is close enough to a crescent for > resembles islamic flags to be a perfectly valid take.

It's actually not a very valid take at all. It is VERY clearly not black I suggest your monitor is extremely poorly calibrated if it appears so. It not only isn't a crescent its not even a vaguely crescent shaped object. In Muslim iconography the crescent is a moon an object in the foreground not the background formed by putting any circular item offset inside any other.

It's reaching.

Post reply on HN