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

Red Programming Language: Plans for 2019

red-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 141 posts

Re: Red Programming Language: Plans for 2019

#21

Post by austincheney »

The Red Language has always described itself as functional imperative. I used to point out to people that functional programming can be imperative and nobody (I do mean nobody I spoke to about this) would believe me on this. Then I would point out to people Red Language as an example and they would scratch their heads in confusion.

Even the Wikipedia article gets this wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming

Functional imperative is the idea of using functions to define the shape of an application, which is to say the nesting of functions defines both the stacked structure and the resulting control flow opposed to describing units of logic or any sort of reflection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_model#Functional_deco...

Re: Red Programming Language: Plans for 2019

#22

Post by 9214 »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #14
Gys wrote: post #9

A great feature of Red is their cross platform GUI support. I see Android is also supported. Does anyone know what the status of iphone (iOS) support is ?

I wouldn't call its GUI really cross-platform yet. Linux GUI definitely isn't production ready. Android is somewhat usable. iOS is not working. Nevertheless, I keep my fingers crossed. My estimate is in 2-3 years you will be able to start writing small cross-platform GUI apps in RED and not worry about trifle problems.

One major stumble block in GTK backend development is a monstrocious string-oriented API for setting widget properties. There's a more low-level one, but it's depricated.

FYI, development of backend happens as we speak [1].

[1]: https://gitter.im/red/GTK

Re: Red Programming Language: Plans for 2019

#24

Post by tonyjstark »

stesch wrote: post #16

I'm I shallow if I stopped caring about this project after they started with all this crypto currency stuff?

I also had strong opinions about this at first. Then I thought, better they get some money through this than all the projects out there that are obviously scams. If they have fun with their C3 language and their interfaces to whatever blockchain, good for them, at least they use the money to drive Red forward. Also happy they didn't lose everything with the last crash.

From a language standpoint, it's just a really interesting project.

Re: Red Programming Language: Plans for 2019

#25

Post by dmitriid »

Yoric wrote: post #17
dmitriid wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's naive at best. It's naive at best to assume that something isn't suitable for domains which you perceive as needing near-bare-metal performance. E.g., your idea about games is provably false since at least IL-2 Sturmovik of 2001 which was written almost entirely in Java.

> E.g., your idea about games is provably false since at least IL-2 Sturmovik of 2001 which was written almost entirely in Java. Oh, really? That's interesting. Do you have details? Was the main I/O loop in Java?

Unfortunately, most of the links are dead or lead to nowhere :(

There was more info 10 or so years back, including class decopilers for the game.

According to this Russian Post [1], it's 90% Java + OpenGL, the rest being DirectSound + DirectInput.

A recent example is Minecraft :) AFAIR it's also in Java :)

[q] https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=ru#!msg/fido7.ru.java/sz...

Re: Red Programming Language: Plans for 2019

#26

Post by 9214 »

austincheney wrote: post #21

The Red Language has always described itself as functional imperative . I used to point out to people that functional programming can be imperative and nobody (I do mean nobody I spoke to about this) would believe me on this. Then I would point out to people Red Language as an example and they would scratch their heads in confusion. Even the Wikipedia article gets this wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_…

Idiomatically written Red is largerly data-driven, composed out of mini languages and micro formats (dialects), with huge emphasis on homoiconicity and rich set of available datatypes.

Functions indeed are mostly used to guide the flow of program and stack dialects on top of one another, so the resulting app is like a dedicated toolchain (or even a VM), where each component is a small interpreter or compiler.

Re: Red Programming Language: Plans for 2019

#27

Post by bjz_ »

austincheney wrote: post #21

The Red Language has always described itself as functional imperative . I used to point out to people that functional programming can be imperative and nobody (I do mean nobody I spoke to about this) would believe me on this. Then I would point out to people Red Language as an example and they would scratch their heads in confusion. Even the Wikipedia article gets this wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_…

> I used to point out to people that functional programming can be imperative and nobody (I do mean nobody I spoke to about this) would believe me on this.

Interesting. Monadic Haskell can be quite imperative if you want it to be, as can SML or OCaml. Scheme and Lisp have imperative parts too.

Re: Red Programming Language: Plans for 2019

#28

Post by zozbot123 »

echelon wrote: post #2

A language with a GC does not seem appropriate for a "full-stack" language with which one would write operating systems, drivers, or game engines. I don't know why any language without full manual memory management would ever posit itself as being appropriate for these domains. It's naive at best.

"Full stack" means different things to different people. There are plenty of GC languages which are still relatively-high performance and can thus be used for technically-challenging, "system"-like tasks. In fact, this very variety is what makes it a bit hard to figure out what Red's unique selling point might be, although it's easier if you're familiar with its predecessor Rebol.

Re: Red Programming Language: Plans for 2019

#30

Post by macintux »

bjz_ wrote: post #27
austincheney wrote: post #21

The Red Language has always described itself as functional imperative . I used to point out to people that functional programming can be imperative and nobody (I do mean nobody I spoke to about this) would believe me on this. Then I would point out to people Red Language as an example and they would scratch their heads in confusion. Even the Wikipedia article gets this wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_…

> I used to point out to people that functional programming can be imperative and nobody (I do mean nobody I spoke to about this) would believe me on this. Interesting. Monadic Haskell can be quite imperative if you want it to be, as can SML or OCaml. Scheme and Lisp have imperative parts too.

Ditto Erlang.
Post reply on HN