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

Amber: Programming language compiled to Bash

amber-lang.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 330 posts

Re: Amber: Programming language compiled to Bash

#321

Post by [deleted] »

bayindirh wrote: post #191
samatman wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However this does not mean C++ is an insane language. It means it has quirks. Any sufficiently quirky technology is indistinguishable from insanity. https://yosefk.com/c++fqa/index.html

You're right. To be fair, I'm absolutely immune to these kinds of quirks in any technology, and just adapt. This causes me to dislike no languages, and just work with them if they fit to the problem I have at hand. This trait baffles a couple of my friends with no end. BTW, That's a great link. Thanks a lot.

[deleted]

Re: Amber: Programming language compiled to Bash

#323

Post by vfclists »

spooneybarger wrote: post #14

I was confused by Amber Smalltalk's pivot. Turns out it is just a newer language deciding to use the same name as an existing one. The domain is almost exactly the same as well. https://amber-lang.net/

There should be a link on the home page linking to the amber-lang.net to avoid confusion.

Strange. It seems to have gone down shortly after this Amber announcement.

It was up the day I read this announcement.

Re: Amber: Programming language compiled to Bash

#324

Post by riffraff »

flir wrote: post #141
riffraff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same for me. There's still plenty of unused gemstones as programming languages so perhaps the authors may still decide to change their name.

Hmmmmmm. Bagsy Coprolite.

there's some precedent, there was a half-done programming language called "merd"[0], I recall the author had a tagline on the lines of "if it does not succeed I can blame the shitty name!".

[0] http://merd.sf.net

Re: Amber: Programming language compiled to Bash

#325

Post by dartos »

schmidt_fifty wrote: post #161
dartos wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sites can tell if you’re running Adblock too. You’re always leaking some kind of information that advertisers will pay for. The game is choosing what information you’re okay giving them

Doesn't really matter if you can block the ads anyway Besides, advertisers are not who i worry about when it comes to "my data".

You just self select as someone who uses Adblock.

Unless you disable all JavaScript you’re leaking something. Honestly, you’re still leaking a bit without js, as long as where you’re connecting to is checking.

The game is just choosing what you’re okay telling wherever you connect to.

Re: Amber: Programming language compiled to Bash

#326

Post by mort96 »

mst wrote: post #105
mort96 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a common practice in Rust at least, where instead of having a mutable variable which you modify across several lines, you declare a new immutable variable with the same name on those lines. I like it, but I guess it really just comes down to preference and what you're used to.

I quite like that pattern, but I think 'with a different datatype' should result in a small gnome climbing out the back of the computer and hitting the developer with a mallet.

Meh. I don't mind:

    let thing = whatever();
    let thing = thing.unwrap();
EDIT: what the hell I say I don't mind a particular pattern and that's enough for a downvote? Not that I care but I find this surprising

Re: Amber: Programming language compiled to Bash

#327

Post by mort96 »

kbp wrote: post #202
michaelmior wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess I haven't read enough Rust code to come across this patterns, but I don't think I particularly like it. Perhaps I would get used to it though :)

It works the same way in Haskell, eg main = do let x = 2 let x = "foo" y which is really the same as main = let x = 2 in let x = "foo" in pure 3 >>= \y -> pure "bar" >>= \y -> putStrLn $ x ++ y So it works pretty naturally where each assignment is kind of like a new scope. If the type system is good, I don't think it really causes issues.

Haskell has got to be by far the least readable language in the world, all of that is incomprehensible

Re: Amber: Programming language compiled to Bash

#328

Post by [deleted] »

riffraff wrote: post #324
flir wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmmmmm. Bagsy Coprolite.

there's some precedent, there was a half-done programming language called "merd"[0], I recall the author had a tagline on the lines of "if it does not succeed I can blame the shitty name!". [0] http://merd.sf.net

[deleted]

Re: Amber: Programming language compiled to Bash

#329

Post by kbp »

mort96 wrote: post #327
kbp wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works the same way in Haskell, eg main = do let x = 2 let x = "foo" y which is really the same as main = let x = 2 in let x = "foo" in pure 3 >>= \y -> pure "bar" >>= \y -> putStrLn $ x ++ y So it works pretty naturally where each assignment is kind of like a new scope. If the type system is good, I don't think it really causes issues.

Haskell has got to be by far the least readable language in the world, all of that is incomprehensible

I'm not sure what you find incomprehensible about the first example. The syntax is pretty standard. The only exotic thing is `$`, which is basically just like putting brackets around the rest of the line. Here's the first example roughly translated to Python:

  def main():
      x = 2
      [x] = ["foo"]
      y = 3
      [y] = ["bar"]
      print(x + y)
Seems about the same level of comprehensibility to me. Is there anything in particular you find difficult to understand?

The second example is expanded out and not how a person would normally write it, but if you're familiar with the basic concepts it's using, it shows why it works very clearly; think of it like assembler.

Re: Amber: Programming language compiled to Bash

#330

Post by kbp »

kbp wrote: post #329
mort96 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haskell has got to be by far the least readable language in the world, all of that is incomprehensible

I'm not sure what you find incomprehensible about the first example. The syntax is pretty standard. The only exotic thing is `$`, which is basically just like putting brackets around the rest of the line. Here's the first example roughly translated to Python: def main(): x = 2 [x] = ["foo"] y = 3 [y] = ["bar"] print(x + y) Seems about the same level of comprehensibility to me. Is there anything in particular you find…

Er, actually

  x = 2
  x = "foo"
  [y] = [3]
  [y] = ["bar"]
Sorry, I didn't re-read the code before translating.
Post reply on HN