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

Anic -- Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh

code.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 96 posts

Re: Anic -- Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh

#51

Post by groby_b »

frozenflame wrote: post #36
groby_b wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not necessarily a sign of a good language, though. ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL is also readable, and yet (thankfully!) we've mostly abandoned COBOL. And no, I'm not saying Python is bad, or like COBOL - just that readability and quality of a language are not necessarily related.

I don't know that I agree, I really am not sure what "GIVING COBOL" means.

It's a COBOL joke. (And a bad one at that)

ADD 1 TO X GIVING Y is COBOL's way of saying y=x+1 ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL is COBOL=COBOL+1. Or COBOL++ :)

Re: Anic -- Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh

#52

Post by groby_b »

endtime wrote: post #43
groby_b wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not necessarily a sign of a good language, though. ADD 1 TO COBOL GIVING COBOL is also readable, and yet (thankfully!) we've mostly abandoned COBOL. And no, I'm not saying Python is bad, or like COBOL - just that readability and quality of a language are not necessarily related.

I wasn't responding to a comment on language quality, I was responding to a comment on language readability.

Yes, but the GP was commenting that they'd never code in that, given the "ugliness". I'd love to reply to both posts as a set, but alas, it doesn't offer that.

Re: Anic -- Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh

#53

Post by drivebyacct2 »

icco wrote: post #44
BrandonM wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not?

That's like saying a windows app supports OSX by installing a Windows XP VM in Parallels.

No it's not. Virtualization and a compatibiltiy DLL are orders of magnitude different, both conceptually and in terms of performance.

Re: Anic -- Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh

#54

Post by metachris »

I think the concept of a data-flow programming language is very interesting and I'd love to see an active, open-source data-flow programming language like Anic (which doesn't currently exists). Which makes me a bit uneasy about Anic is that it only has 3 committers, with the last update end of September, and no working compiler.

The developer needs two things: (a) financial support so he can work on it full time, and (b) an active community of contributors. Maybe some organization could sponsor him, or perhaps do a Kickstarter fundraise or simply ask around for donations... I just hope it gets some traction and a compiler; for certain problems Anic could be a very interesting and natural approach.

PS: The first response in this thread contains a few well articulated reasons for being interested in Anic: http://groups.google.com/group/ani-compiler/browse_thread/th...

Re: Anic -- Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh

#55

Post by BrandonM »

gcb wrote: post #45
BrandonM wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not?

So every windows only company can claim full Linux support ...via wine.

Cygwin can see every Windows file trivially via /cygdrive. Programs compiled in cygwin are mostly native code that at the bottom rely on Windows DLLs. This is a pretty significant difference from an emulator or a virtual machine (someone mentioned Parallels below).

Re: Anic -- Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh

#56

Post by Goladus »

My suggestion is to get an editor to look at that tutorial. It's fantastic that so much effort was put into presenting the language, but reading it is rather painful.

At best it's written like a oral lecture, at worst it's wordy, condescending, overuses of italics for emphasis, leads by the nose for no apparent reason, and has obvious exaggerations that aren't clarified.

The grammar is all fine and so is the general structure, but I suspect a good writer could help a lot with the remaining details.

Re: Anic -- Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh

#57

Post by tedunangst »

BrandonM wrote: post #37
mey wrote: post #28

Maybe it's just me, but I don't believe you can claim Windows supported by Cygwin proxy.

Why not?

Cygwin is GPL.

Distributing even a simple unmodified GPL library with your code is a huge PITA. Your app may not become GPL'd, but you still need to distribute a copy of the GPL with all its attendant "paperwork" and 3 year ftp servers and original sources, yada yada.

Re: Anic -- Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh

#58

Post by tedunangst »

BrandonM wrote: post #55
gcb wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So every windows only company can claim full Linux support ...via wine.

Cygwin can see every Windows file trivially via /cygdrive. Programs compiled in cygwin are mostly native code that at the bottom rely on Windows DLLs. This is a pretty significant difference from an emulator or a virtual machine (someone mentioned Parallels below).

wine is not an emulator.

Re: Anic -- Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh

#59

Post by VladRussian »

jws wrote: post #6

Faster than C – this is explained in the FAQ as most C programs being single threaded and ANI being inherently multithreaded. ANIC was posted to HN most of a year ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1042122 with much commentary.

"Faster than C ... as most C programs being single threaded and ANI being inherently multithreaded."

in terms of South Park it is a Chewbacca argument. Another example of it would be - "C is smarter than Python because most of programs in C is smarter than ones in Python." (C and Python choosen randomly as i have no idea about Python :)

Re: Anic -- Faster than C, Safer than Java, Simpler than *sh

#60

Post by rlpb »

mey wrote: post #47
BrandonM wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not?

The compiled binary result of an ANIC program can not run on Windows natively. Thus where on other systems my dependency list is simply the native binary, on Windows, Cygwin either needs to be packaged with the release or installed manually by the user. It's a blurry question regarding where you say a VM/Compatibility shim means that you no longer running the application natively. The same can be asked of Java, Flash…

What about .NET? By your logic, applications written for the .NET CLR don't support Windows (XP) either.
Post reply on HN