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

The Borgo Programming Language

borgo-lang.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 204 posts

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#31

Post by nulld3v »

taosx wrote: post #5

That's very close to what I want, I wonder if we'd ever have customization for programming languages on the client side but when pushing to git it would get transpiled to the most common subset. A small change I would have loved at first glance would be the double colons (::) for namespace path along with explicit extraction and pub for public types.

I have this same dream wayyy too often (uunfortunately).

- A language that transpiles down to human readable, idiomatic Go.

- Automatic folding of normal Go code into more concise/functional-style syntax.

- Proper preservation of where every folded token came from for byte-perfect reconstruction of the original code. (Probably involving something like a lockfile).

- On-demand transpilation during VCS checkout, or transpilation can happen directly in your IDE during file load/save.

I think as long as some tricks are done, the in-IDE transpilation could even let you reuse all the existing Go syntax highlighting and autocompletion IDE infra.

I started working on an IDE plugin to prototype transpilation "Go -> new lang". The plugin would replace Go code using IDE "code-folds" so it effectively didn't exist and wouldn't impact autocomplete/highlighting. And then you could use IDE snippets that expand to Go code to "pretend" you were writing in the new language.

But unfortunately, I have too many other wild dreams in my head so it never went anywhere.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#32

Post by polyaniline »

weinzierl wrote: post #30
kjksf wrote: post #6

I love it. This is a language that everyone here says they want but no one will use, even though it's stable and mature (I assume because it compiles to stable and mature Go and can use every existing Go library). It hits all the "ok, Go is popular but made by morons for morons and if only it had this X advanced feature, it would be totally great". It has immutability. It has advanced enums. It has algebraic types. I…

"It literally addresses every major complaint people have with Go." It addresses complaints 1 to n but does nothing about complaint 0: Having a garbage collector with all its associated downsides.

If it skipped the GC wouldn't it just be Rust?

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#34

Post by mkl »

diggan wrote: post #28
bmacho wrote: post #24

Looks similar to Haxe (and to the language that C++/Java/Python/TypeScript/etc are converging). Now give it to google, release it as .go2, and make it frictionless to use Go and Go2 in a codebase.

> Now give it to google, release it as .go2, and make it frictionless to use Go and Go2 in a codebase. Has Google ever "taken" an already created project under their wing and ran with it? AFAIK, Google only does the opposite and releases projects from their grips, but never the opposite. "Everything Google does, Google must invent" is how it looks like from the outside at least.

Webkit.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#36

Post by jjallen »

This is interesting except for the fact that there is no license. This makes this "language" technically only usable by the creator?

This is what GH says about no license being included. I almost think they should make including a license obligatory.

> You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. If you're creating an open source project, we strongly encourage you to include an open source license. The Open Source Guide provides additional guidance on choosing the correct license for your project.

Note

If you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, according to the Terms of Service, other users of GitHub.com have the right to view and fork your repository. If you have already created a repository and no longer want users to have access to the repository, you can make the repository private. When you change the visibility of a repository to private, existing forks or local copies created by other users will still exist. For more information, see "Setting repository visibility."

Also if it compiled to Rust instead of Go (it is written in Rust which made me think it compiled to Rust for a minute) we could do something about that darn GC.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#37

Post by dicytea »

kjksf wrote: post #6

I love it. This is a language that everyone here says they want but no one will use, even though it's stable and mature (I assume because it compiles to stable and mature Go and can use every existing Go library). It hits all the "ok, Go is popular but made by morons for morons and if only it had this X advanced feature, it would be totally great". It has immutability. It has advanced enums. It has algebraic types. I…

It'll probably not get as much traction as Go, but for a simpler reason that may not be as ideologically satisfying for you. It's just really hard for a new language to get real traction, no matter how good it is. And it's even harder for transpiled languages, because they almost always gets overshadowed by the language they're transpiling to.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#38

Post by joatmon-snoo »

diggan wrote: post #28
bmacho wrote: post #24

Looks similar to Haxe (and to the language that C++/Java/Python/TypeScript/etc are converging). Now give it to google, release it as .go2, and make it frictionless to use Go and Go2 in a codebase.

> Now give it to google, release it as .go2, and make it frictionless to use Go and Go2 in a codebase. Has Google ever "taken" an already created project under their wing and ran with it? AFAIK, Google only does the opposite and releases projects from their grips, but never the opposite. "Everything Google does, Google must invent" is how it looks like from the outside at least.

If Google adopts an existing OSS technology, it usually takes the form of Google contributors joining a core team for the OSS in question. The OSS community generally isn't a fan of single companies taking _over_ a project and generally prefers ownership changes in the other direction (e.g. Kubernetes getting transferred to the CNCF).

That being said, the most noticeable example here that I can think of is Google migrating its internal C++ toolchain from using gcc/g++ to clang.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#39

Post by mst »

dicytea wrote: post #37
kjksf wrote: post #6

I love it. This is a language that everyone here says they want but no one will use, even though it's stable and mature (I assume because it compiles to stable and mature Go and can use every existing Go library). It hits all the "ok, Go is popular but made by morons for morons and if only it had this X advanced feature, it would be totally great". It has immutability. It has advanced enums. It has algebraic types. I…

It'll probably not get as much traction as Go, but for a simpler reason that may not be as ideologically satisfying for you. It's just really hard for a new language to get real traction, no matter how good it is. And it's even harder for transpiled languages, because they almost always gets overshadowed by the language they're transpiling to.

What I find truly fascinating is that given the complexity of most build systems (especially ones that use babel) basically every node project I encounter is in fact effectively transpiled, it's just it's "javascript compiled to javascript" rather than having a different source syntax.

I don't even mind[0], I think it's actually kind of amazing.

[0] I have all the usual complaints about build systems and about the node ecosystem in general, but I don't think the fact that it's javascript compiled to javascript in and of itself is a problem, only, well, almost everything about how that's usually implemented/achieved :D

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#40

Post by mst »

bmacho wrote: post #24

Looks similar to Haxe (and to the language that C++/Java/Python/TypeScript/etc are converging). Now give it to google, release it as .go2, and make it frictionless to use Go and Go2 in a codebase.

I can't immediately find it but somebody once said something like "on a long enough timeline, all languages become CommonLispScript with different syntax" and there's definitely some truth to that.
Post reply on HN