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

The Austral Programming Language

austral-lang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 124 posts

Re: The Austral Programming Language

#11

Post by TOGoS »

pbarnes_1 wrote: post #9

This is cool but everything is too verbose. `austral compile hello.aum --entrypoint=Hello:main --output=hello` vs `go build` Etc etc.

On the contrary, I like it when the interface to my tools err on the side of precision at the cost of verbosity. I can always write a shell script or Makefile that does all the boring stuff once I've learned what the inputs mean, but if a tool only provides an overly simplified interface, it is much less obvious what it's doing, or what the other options might be, if any.

What does `go build` do? What files does it implicitly rely on? I have no idea. But I have a pretty good idea of what that `austral` command is going to do without having read any documentation about it.

Re: The Austral Programming Language

#12

Post by linguae »

iroddis wrote: post #5

This quite a shallow observation, but I really wish new languages would cut down on verbosity and boilerplate. Making people type out “function” instead of “fn”, “def”, or nothing at all feels like unneeded friction. I’m not looking for APL levels of terseness, but I also don’t want to have my code mistaken for an essay filled with what amounts to scaffolding.

The language’s syntax seems to be influenced by languages designed by Wirth, such as Pascal, Modula-2, and Oberon. These languages have many fans, but they have quite verbose syntax compared to either languages influenced by C or those influenced by the ML family.

Personally I prefer more terse syntax, but I’ve heard some people defend the style of more verbose languages like Pascal and Java when writing large programs.

Re: The Austral Programming Language

#13

Post by seagreen »

Did not expect docs to be this exciting...

    On July 3, 1940, as part of Operation Catapult, Royal Air Force pilots bombed the ships of the French Navy stationed off Mers-el-Kébir to prevent them falling into the hands of the Third Reich.
    This is Austral’s approach to error handling: scuttle the ship without delay.

Re: The Austral Programming Language

#14

Post by dustingetz »

iroddis wrote: post #5

This quite a shallow observation, but I really wish new languages would cut down on verbosity and boilerplate. Making people type out “function” instead of “fn”, “def”, or nothing at all feels like unneeded friction. I’m not looking for APL levels of terseness, but I also don’t want to have my code mistaken for an essay filled with what amounts to scaffolding.

\ the ultimate

Re: The Austral Programming Language

#15

Post by dataangel »

convolvatron wrote: post #3

I can understand the intent behind most of the design 'no's - except for subtyping. why is this a problem? I was just looking at the union/sum distinction and the same thing came up. maybe this is a good learning moment.

PL designers like to cast features that make their job harder and user's life easier as "anti-features"

Re: The Austral Programming Language

#16

Post by mrkeen »

This language looks super promising. With the exceptions of 'no type inference' and 'no arithmetic precedence', I really like its anti-features list.

With regard to 'no arithmetic precedence', I tried

    printLn((1 + 2) + 3);
and

    printLn(1 + 2 + 3);
Sure enough, the first one compiles, but the second doesn't.

Also, (n-1) is a parse error unless you put a space after the minus.

I got curious if recursion was properly handled, given it wasn't in the anti-features list, but no luck:

    module body Foo is

        function go(acc: Nat64, n: Nat64): Nat64 is
            if n = 0 then
                return acc;
            else
                return go(acc + n, n - 1);
            end if;
        end;

        function main(): ExitCode is
            printLn(go(0, 135000));
            return ExitSuccess();
        end;

    end module body.
yields

    Segmentation fault (core dumped)

Re: The Austral Programming Language

#17

Post by joshmarlow »

mrkeen wrote: post #16

This language looks super promising. With the exceptions of 'no type inference' and 'no arithmetic precedence', I really like its anti-features list. With regard to 'no arithmetic precedence', I tried printLn((1 + 2) + 3); and printLn(1 + 2 + 3); Sure enough, the first one compiles, but the second doesn't. Also, (n-1) is a parse error unless you put a space after the minus. I got curious if recursion was properly han…

That's curious - one of the example programs computes the fibonacci sequence. The language is clearly still a work in progress. I wonder what the difference is in your recursion and what's listed?

https://austral-lang.org/examples/fib

Re: The Austral Programming Language

#18

Post by mamcx »

convolvatron wrote: post #3

I can understand the intent behind most of the design 'no's - except for subtyping. why is this a problem? I was just looking at the union/sum distinction and the same thing came up. maybe this is a good learning moment.

> No subtyping.

Adding it open a can of worms. Your type-inference/checking must account for "similar but..." types, you need to follow hierarchies/graphs/trees,etc, you need a way to "re-import" code that "belongs to the super type" (and probably recheck it?), it not always mesh well with other features (or make it harder).

Aside: One of the big reasons to make a bit list of "NO" is to avoid the temptation of "add some sugar to make this easier" but without fully understanding the consequences until becomes later.

Re: The Austral Programming Language

#19

Post by mrkeen »

joshmarlow wrote: post #17
mrkeen wrote: post #16

This language looks super promising. With the exceptions of 'no type inference' and 'no arithmetic precedence', I really like its anti-features list. With regard to 'no arithmetic precedence', I tried printLn((1 + 2) + 3); and printLn(1 + 2 + 3); Sure enough, the first one compiles, but the second doesn't. Also, (n-1) is a parse error unless you put a space after the minus. I got curious if recursion was properly han…

That's curious - one of the example programs computes the fibonacci sequence. The language is clearly still a work in progress. I wonder what the difference is in your recursion and what's listed? https://austral-lang.org/examples/fib

> I wonder what the difference is in your recursion and what's listed?

How deep you recurse :D

Re: The Austral Programming Language

#20

Post by KRAKRISMOTT »

seagreen wrote: post #13

Did not expect docs to be this exciting... On July 3, 1940, as part of Operation Catapult, Royal Air Force pilots bombed the ships of the French Navy stationed off Mers-el-Kébir to prevent them falling into the hands of the Third Reich. This is Austral’s approach to error handling: scuttle the ship without delay.

The British would probably be happy to do that even without the Third Reich. There are still British people today pissed about the French surrendering too quickly.
Post reply on HN