Is your programming language unreasonable? (2015)

Post by qppo » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 4:30 PM UTC

leephillips wrote: post #56

Lavinski wrote: post #39

The article goes through a series of examples to show motivations for the following: 1. Variables should not be allowed to change their type. 2. Objects containing the same values should be equal by default. 3. Comparing objects of different types is a compile-time error. 4. Objects must always be initialized to a valid state. Not doing so is a compile-time error. 5. Once created, objects and collections must be immu…

5. Once created, objects and collections must be immutable. So this language would not be general purpose, as it would not be suitable for high-performance computing. Large scale simulations almost always involve arrays that are modified in place. Being able to somehow declare a collection to be immutable would be highly useful, but not having the option of mutable collections limits the kinds of problems that can be…

Post by ColinWright » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 4:38 PM UTC

dunefox wrote: post #43

ColinWright wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really can't work out what you're trying to say here. I can guess, but maybe it would be better if you wrote something more expository or discursive. For example, is "Speakeasy, Lightouch, Jazz" intended to be a single noun? A single thing? Or is it a collection? A sequence? What do you mean by "getting stable shelter"? Or to "hand off notes to people"? Have you written something already? is there a link?

I'm assuming that comment was written by a bot, tbh.

Post by anw » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 4:41 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #90

In example #6, he gives this as the unreasonable approach: var repo = new CustomerRepository(); var customer = repo.GetById(42); Console.WriteLine(customer.Id); with the issue being customer can be null, which is not being accounted for. The reasonable approach he says is to use a sum type: var repo = new CustomerRepository(); var customerOrError = repo.GetById(42); if (customerOrError.IsCustomer) Console.WriteLine(c…

    enum Animal {
        Dog,
        Cat,
        Pigeon
    }
    let pet = Animal::Dog;
    let sound = match pet {
        Animal::Dog => String::from("ouaf"),
        Animal::Cat => String::from("miaou")
    };

    Animal::Pigeon => String::from("rou rou")

    _ => String::from("eeeeeeeeeeeei")

Post by alkonaut » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 5:03 PM UTC

lostcolony wrote: post #89

alkonaut wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean for a programming language to be able to handle the general cases it should also handle the maybe 10% or 20% of programs that might need mutation in their hot paths. Obviously one solution is to call out to a different programing language for only the areas that require it, but I’d consider that a definite deficiency if it’s commonly required. I think e.g C# and F# handle mutation well, but I think F# does the…

"Depends on what problems you are solving I suppose. " - well, yes. Hence my question about what you're defining as the general case; that 10-20% seems rather high for cases you'd need mutability. I think it's a bit of a red herring to ask "can you solve them quickly enough" - after all, if pure speed across all use cases is your concern, why would you advocate a garbage collected language?

Post by tyrrrz » Sat, Oct 10, 2020, 5:21 PM UTC

alkonaut wrote: post #60

> Objects containing the same values should be equal by default. I strongly disagree with this. I’d take it one step further and say that there should be no equality operator or default equals function for non-primitive data types. Some specific type of records/tuples could use a default equality, but it should be opt-in or follow from using metadata like an attribute (e.g Rust derive) or only for those specific type…