The Hare programming language

Post by kazinator » Mon, Apr 25, 2022, 9:28 PM UTC

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.

Post by wheelerof4te » Mon, Apr 25, 2022, 9:33 PM UTC

duped wrote: post #236

packetlost wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard disagree. Linux is by far the largest majority of server deployments, and you are not doing yourself any favors by not developing on the same platform as your deploy target.

I agree 100%, but balanced against the fact that many devs need laptops from their employer, and it's way easier to get a good macbook that just works good enough for development than a linux machine. Especially when you don't control ordering, or need to inherit machines. Dev on Mac and deploy on Linux is a popular setup for a reason. Until there's a macbook pro for linux that you can just buy*, it's going to contin…

Post by wheelerof4te » Mon, Apr 25, 2022, 9:41 PM UTC

throw10920 wrote: post #203

nine_k wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my brief look at the documentation, the answers look like this: they have a defer statement much like Go's, they don't seem to have any form of generics, they don't seem to have any form of comptime logic. They really need a section on the landing page to compare Hare to Zig. (And to C, for that matter.)

> they don't seem to have any form of comptime logic Or macros, not even textual C-style ones. Non-starter for me.

Post by sorokod » Mon, Apr 25, 2022, 9:49 PM UTC

ddevault wrote: post #238

boardwaalk wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly that really kills my interest I have in the language. That’s not realistically going to happen (a reimplementation) or go well (maintaining a fork) with a (frankly) niche language. I suspect the pool of people who develop locally (on Win or Mac, and need something functional if not optimal) and deploy to Linux is not small. Is there a particular reason? io-uring?

As other commenters alluded to, it's an ideological and practical decision. We simply prefer free software operating systems. We do not care to legitimize nonfree platforms, and we prefer to be able to read (and patch) the code to understand the tools we depend on. If that's a deal-breaker for you, no worries - Hare does not have to appeal to everyone to achieve its goals.

Post by woodruffw » Mon, Apr 25, 2022, 10:52 PM UTC

IshKebab wrote: post #268

woodruffw wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust is a complicated language, but I don’t it reaches C++ levels of complexity. One of the pernicious aspects of “mastering” C++ is understanding all of its leaky abstractions; there’s nothing like SIOF or SFINAE in Rust.

It definitely does. I think a lot of people think it doesn't because a) most people who know both have far more experience with C++ and are yet to experience its really complicated bits yet, and b) C++ has an actual specification so you can read about all its complexity. Rust may not have SFINAE but C++ doesn't have for , Phantom data or Pin.