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

The Hare programming language

harelang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 323 posts

Re: The Hare programming language

#181

Post by ncmncm »

eatonphil wrote: post #171
ncmncm wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self-hosting is a very last-millennium form of wankage. Back then, a compiler was a pretty significant program, and compiler construction tools weren't mature. Nowadays, self-hosting your compiler doesn't demonstrate much of anything. It takes a lot more than a compiler to prove anything meaningful about your language. Time spent on self-hosting is mostly just time wasted. It mainly suggests you were not really serio…

> Self-hosting is a very last-millennium form of wankage You're reading way more into my comment than I wrote. I asked a question.

I'm not reading anything into it at all.

Re: The Hare programming language

#182

Post by pxeger1 »

metaltyphoon wrote: post #176
ddevault wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not supporting Windows and macOS will likely hurt the adoption of the language. Not among our target audience it won't. > Anyway, is it possible to target bare-metal with Hare? Is it possible to use it without the standard library? Yes. Here are two kernels written in Hare that don't use the stdlib: https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/helios https://git.sr.ht/~yerinalexey/carrot

> Not among our target audience it won't. Yes it will. I have no interest in using Linux as desktop but I do use it for deployments. If there is one trait of major PL is the adoption of the big 3 OSes. This is Hare’s biggest flaw right now.

Modern web programming is almost always deployed on Unix-like operating systems / Linux. The biggest reason to allow running Hare on Windows/macOS would just be for developers who don't use Linux.

Re: The Hare programming language

#183

Post by thrtythreeforty »

ddevault wrote: post #28
xeeeeeeeeeeenu wrote: post #26

Not supporting Windows and macOS will likely hurt the adoption of the language. Anyway, is it possible to target bare-metal with Hare? Is it possible to use it without the standard library?

> Not supporting Windows and macOS will likely hurt the adoption of the language. Not among our target audience it won't. > Anyway, is it possible to target bare-metal with Hare? Is it possible to use it without the standard library? Yes. Here are two kernels written in Hare that don't use the stdlib: https://git.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/helios https://git.sr.ht/~yerinalexey/carrot

I hope you'll reconsider this in the long term, not because I think Windows/macOS are great (my feelings for them range between "ugh" and abject horror depending on the day).

Rather, I think it would be good because it makes a language much more palatable for mainstream adoption if it's possible for programs written to be ported to Windows/macOS. Languages need the positive adoption feedback loop. Rust would not be as mature and stable as it is today if it were relegated to Linux server programming.

That said - I can appreciate keeping a small target for the language in the beginning. It allows you to concentrate efforts and achieve an MVP much sooner than you would be able to if you had to deal with Windows BS :)

Re: The Hare programming language

#184

Post by nomemory »

turminal wrote: post #67
pizza234 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Is appreciating Rust some kind of high ideal in the world of programming?

Yes, Rust is quite posh nowadays.

Just like Scala and F# a decade ago.

Or like ruby 15 years ago, or like Java in the 90s.

Re: The Hare programming language

#185

Post by FrozenVoid »

cestith wrote: post #159
FrozenVoid wrote: post #95

Lack of macros in recent systems languages like Zig/Hare/etc seems to be a design flaw, a handicap marketed as safety feature or bargain for clarity. If a language can't replace C macros, it cannot replace C.

C doesn't exactly have macros. That's a text substitution done by the preprocessor in its own limited, special-purpose language. True hygienic macros of something like Common Lisp are a different beast. If all you want are textual substitutions, you can use the C preprocessor in front of any language.

C macros are as abstract or even more abstract than hygienic macros https://github.com/BlueFlo0d/CSP https://github.com/FrozenVoid/C-headers/blob/main/argmanip.h

Re: The Hare programming language

#186

Post by colonwqbang »

amelius wrote: post #179
ncmncm wrote: post #177

The first thing I look for in something that claims to be a systems language is whether it provides anything that helps me out. First and foremost, does it provide any primitive that can be used for automation? C++ brought destructors, Rust did a Drop trait. What do you have? Second, does it provide any way to operate on types? C++ got templates, Rust offers generics. What do you have? Third, does it provide useful c…

> We have learned things since then. Have you? We have learned to read the documentation before we judge things.

Unless the front page points out at least something that is different or better about the new language compared to the alternatives, most people will not read the documentation.

Re: The Hare programming language

#187

Post by metaltyphoon »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #172
lloydatkinson wrote: post #51

Why do people keep choosing :: over simply .? How does adding more visual noise help anyone?

To distinguish between an instance and a namespace? The same can be said for why do we need to put parenthesis after functions that take no parameters? So people still know it's a function.

> To distinguish between an instance and a namespace?

I’m with OP here. C# proves that . reduces the noise substantially.

Re: The Hare programming language

#188

Post by [deleted] »

Shadonototra wrote: post #129
kaba0 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sanitizers can only show you some memory problems that happen during a given runtime with given data . And your 10+ minutes baseless assumption is just demonstratively false. In the default debug mode it is literally instant with human perception on my current, not small project. Longer compiles only happen in release mode or when you introduce new dependencies. Shall I link you to Valgrind bugs as well?

> And your 10+ minutes baseless assumption is just demonstratively false Ok, not 10+ minutes, more like 6 minutes on a beefy machine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nR2WDBMjkh8&t=976s > Shall I link you to Valgrind bugs as well? See, you fail to understand the point

[deleted]

Re: The Hare programming language

#190

Post by metaltyphoon »

pxeger1 wrote: post #182
metaltyphoon wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not among our target audience it won't. Yes it will. I have no interest in using Linux as desktop but I do use it for deployments. If there is one trait of major PL is the adoption of the big 3 OSes. This is Hare’s biggest flaw right now.

Modern web programming is almost always deployed on Unix-like operating systems / Linux. The biggest reason to allow running Hare on Windows/macOS would just be for developers who don't use Linux.

Correct, which outnumbers the number of developers using Linux only right? Why cut a substantial amount of your possible user base?
Post reply on HN