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

The Bosque Programming Language

microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 172 posts

Re: The Bosque Programming Language

#91

Post by samatman »

emmanueloga_ wrote: post #33
mshockwave wrote: post #24

> Thus, Bosque does not have any undefined behavior I think this is the one that should be highlighted most. Otherwise, from an engineering perspective, many of the other language features have already been implemented and widely used in other languages

I think I remember someone talk about undefined behavior in specifications and how it is actually a good thing, in the sense that offers increased liberty for implementations and some other advantages. Anybody else has heard this? Don't quite remember where I read it. My humble opinion aligns with yours, it seems intuitively "better" to have no undefined behavior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefined_behavior#Risk…

I will always take an opportunity to link to Undefined Intimacy with the Machine[0].

Whether or not you agree with Evan Buswell, it is a solid argument, both for its thesis, and for the utility of Code Studies in general.

0: http://thoughtmesh.net/publish/367.php

Re: The Bosque Programming Language

#92

Post by velcrovan »

foldr wrote: post #86
hobofan wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never heard that either but I guess that impression might come from the first line of the MIT license: > Copyright (c) Where is often filled as the company of the primary developer, e.g. "Facebook". What I often see (and use) to avoid this, is filling it in with "The developers", e.g. "The React developers".

Ah I see, good point. I think management of code copyright is inherently complicated and not something that a license template can really fix. You do need to keep track of who has copyright of the code.

The link I provided does explain this, under the section “MIT and BSD don’t expect more contributors”, which reads in part:

“MIT and BSD terms include a space for a single copyright notice, because they were written for releases from academic institutions that own all the copyrights in their employees’ work. What about other contributors to the project? They hold copyright in their contributions.”

Apache 2.0 DOES address this issue in a complicated way, through the supplementary use of Contributor License Agreements. Other non-Apache projects like Fossil also require you to physically sign a CLA before contributing code to the project.

Blue Oak handles this in a more straightforward way, by explicitly saying that, as a condition of the license, every contributor in turn allows any use of their code that would otherwise infringe their copyright or patent claims. Who is a contributor? Anyone who contributes code. No CLA needed.

Re: The Bosque Programming Language

#93

Post by velcrovan »

teddyh wrote: post #85
azhenley wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know much about licenses but last week I added a license to one of my GitHub repositories for the first time. GitHub seemed to be heavily pushing MIT as the default. If the MIT license assumes everyone works at the same place then that seems horrible for GitHub repositories, right?

Horrible for who? Who would it be horrible for, who would it benefit , and who is in a position to decide what the default is? Cui bono ?

Horrible in the sense of being an obvious mismatch for how development happens on GitHub, which pretty much exists to make contributions easy across institutional boundaries. No one benefits from the choice of MIT as a GitHub default. It's a quagmire of legal confusion borne out of pure ignorance.

Re: The Bosque Programming Language

#94

Post by jasonincanada »

Stratoscope wrote: post #46
jjtheblunt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an English error on the very first sentence of the description on the Microsoft site.

> There's an English error on the very first sentence of the description on the Microsoft site. [emphasis added] The correct usage would be to talk about an error "in" a sentence, not "on" a sentence. Muphry's law get you every time! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry%27s_law

Surely you didn't mean too but the correct tense of "get" on you're sentence would be "gets"

Re: The Bosque Programming Language

#95

Post by seanmcdirmid »

azhenley wrote: post #68
reikonomusha wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello! Disclaimer: I haven’t read the full publication yet and I’ve only skimmed it. A lot of programming languages that are coming out these days talk about simplicity, lowering “cognitive load”, increasing expressiveness, being nimble/lightweight/easy/whatever, and—this one stated by you—reducing “accidental complexity”. When I looked at your grammar and some examples, I saw atomic building blocks that don’t lead t…

I wish PL researchers would actually run studies to measure cognitive load and usability metrics while using their language compared to some other language. I would do it if the right PhD student came along!

Running any study with real humans is very expensive. We can measure simple things empirically (eg reaction time), but trying to measure something such has “cognitive load” is probably impossible, and what is a usability metric? Do those already exist for PL or so they need to be invented somehow?

We (PL researchers) think about this a lot, but so far no one has come up with any good answers on how to empirically measure PL usability for an entire PL (vs chipping off small features to evaluate). At best, we can run qualitative studies with little in the way of rigor.

Re: The Bosque Programming Language

#96

Post by foldr »

velcrovan wrote: post #92
foldr wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah I see, good point. I think management of code copyright is inherently complicated and not something that a license template can really fix. You do need to keep track of who has copyright of the code.

The link I provided does explain this, under the section “MIT and BSD don’t expect more contributors”, which reads in part: “MIT and BSD terms include a space for a single copyright notice, because they were written for releases from academic institutions that own all the copyrights in their employees’ work. What about other contributors to the project? They hold copyright in their contributions.” Apache 2.0 DOES add…

I don't know what is meant by "space" here. It's a text file. There's nothing to stop someone listing multiple copyright holders in an MIT license.

In general, having a long list of copyright holders is bad, because it makes it almost impossible in practice to verify that all of the copyright holders actually consent to release their code under the relevant license.

Re: The Bosque Programming Language

#97

Post by teddyh »

velcrovan wrote: post #93
teddyh wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Horrible for who? Who would it be horrible for, who would it benefit , and who is in a position to decide what the default is? Cui bono ?

Horrible in the sense of being an obvious mismatch for how development happens on GitHub, which pretty much exists to make contributions easy across institutional boundaries. No one benefits from the choice of MIT as a GitHub default. It's a quagmire of legal confusion borne out of pure ignorance.

> GitHub, which pretty much exists to make contributions easy across institutional boundaries

No, GitHub exists to somehow benefit the current owners, Microsoft, however they decide is the best way.

> No one benefits from the choice of MIT as a GitHub default.

Actually, there is a good argument to be made that Microsoft actually benefits from MIT being the default, as nickpsecurity pointed out in a sibling comment.

Re: The Bosque Programming Language

#98

Post by xxxdarrenxxx »

Why capital I though for integer. Not only doesn't it seem to fit in line with the rest of the syntax, the capital I and l in some fonts is a well known psychological annoyance for many.

Edit: Funnily the issue ( I & l )is now visibly noticeable with HN's font choice

Might be a bit over-critical, but when I read that it's main selling point is making it more human readable, this seems a bit troll

Re: The Bosque Programming Language

#99

Post by fxfan »

coldtea wrote: post #58
fxfan wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hello, no offense but the community here is bikeshedding. I'd suggest you to discuss this at /r/programming

Sounds offensive to me. First of all, the community here discusses the post, and whatever they like about the language and announcement -- and whatever they think of tied (loosely or not, to that). We're not here as some committee with some explicit purpose to give relevant PL criticism.

I don't mind you being offended, I was talking to the creator.
Post reply on HN