Ante: A low-level functional language
antelang.org
Ante: A low-level functional language
1–10 of 226 posts
Re: Ante: A low-level functional language
#2Very interesting stuff! I didn't even thought is possible to implement a low level functional languages, I always thought a functional language requires a ton of abstractions.
Re: Ante: A low-level functional language
#3The syntax looks a little funky to me but it's still quite interesting. Is there a reason why you would make fn(1) and fn 1 equivalent? For me personally it makes readability worse and looks strange when chaining functions like in their last example on their landing page.
On mobile horizontal scrolling through the code snippets will trigger switching to the next snippet on my phone.
Re: Ante: A low-level functional language
#4RE lifetime inference: how does it infer lifetimes for mutually recursive functions that return refs to what would be local data? Does it automatically infer a dynamic stack?
Re: Ante: A low-level functional language
#5The syntax looks a little funky to me but it's still quite interesting. Is there a reason why you would make fn(1) and fn 1 equivalent? For me personally it makes readability worse and looks strange when chaining functions like in their last example on their landing page. On mobile horizontal scrolling through the code snippets will trigger switching to the next snippet on my phone.
> Is there a reason why you would make fn(1) and fn 1 equivalent?
If your standard function call convention is just `f x`, but you also support precedence operators, then `f (x)` automatically becomes possible.
It reminds me of an old Lisp joke, though:
f x -- too mathematical!
(f x) -- too many parenthesis!
f(x) -- just right!Re: Ante: A low-level functional language
#6The syntax looks a little funky to me but it's still quite interesting. Is there a reason why you would make fn(1) and fn 1 equivalent? For me personally it makes readability worse and looks strange when chaining functions like in their last example on their landing page. On mobile horizontal scrolling through the code snippets will trigger switching to the next snippet on my phone.
It seems the parenthesis are only used to indicate the priority, like in Haskell, so you wouldn't really use them for `fn (1)`.
Re: Ante: A low-level functional language
#7The syntax looks a little funky to me but it's still quite interesting. Is there a reason why you would make fn(1) and fn 1 equivalent? For me personally it makes readability worse and looks strange when chaining functions like in their last example on their landing page. On mobile horizontal scrolling through the code snippets will trigger switching to the next snippet on my phone.
Those two function calls are the same thing in OCaml and Standard ML.
Re: Ante: A low-level functional language
#8Very interesting stuff! I didn't even thought is possible to implement a low level functional languages, I always thought a functional language requires a ton of abstractions.
At the end of the day what prevents functional languages from being a good fit for low-level programming is that effective low-level programming cannot be referentially transparent.
Might be my 2 cents, but i think Rust can hit a very sweet spot for functionally-leaning low-level effective programming.
Re: Ante: A low-level functional language
#9The syntax looks a little funky to me but it's still quite interesting. Is there a reason why you would make fn(1) and fn 1 equivalent? For me personally it makes readability worse and looks strange when chaining functions like in their last example on their landing page. On mobile horizontal scrolling through the code snippets will trigger switching to the next snippet on my phone.
Those two function calls are the same thing in OCaml and Standard ML.
Coming from OCaml, F# uses the same syntax. Works very well.
Re: Ante: A low-level functional language
#10The syntax looks a little funky to me but it's still quite interesting. Is there a reason why you would make fn(1) and fn 1 equivalent? For me personally it makes readability worse and looks strange when chaining functions like in their last example on their landing page. On mobile horizontal scrolling through the code snippets will trigger switching to the next snippet on my phone.
> Is there a reason why you would make fn(1) and fn 1 equivalent? If your standard function call convention is just `f x`, but you also support precedence operators, then `f (x)` automatically becomes possible. It reminds me of an old Lisp joke, though: f x -- too mathematical! (f x) -- too many parenthesis! f(x) -- just right!
> f x -- too mathematical!
:) yet we are very happy to use the same syntax in shell scripts or the shell itself.